Search Climate Insights Directory

The 2026 National Budget is criticized for maintaining austerity measures, reducing non-interest spending by R5.2 billion in 2026/27, and failing to address chronic food insecurity and unemployment. The document highlights that real spending on public services, including education and healthcare, is declining, while tax relief is skewed toward higher-income earners. It further critiques the second Gender Budget Statement for being peripheral to fiscal decision-making and failing to address the structural vulnerabilities of female-headed households.

The report forecasts that COVID-19 will significantly hinder Africa's progress toward the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals, particularly in eliminating extreme poverty. Depending on the recovery scenario (V, U, or L), the number of Africans living in extreme poverty by 2030 is projected to increase to between 607 million and 640 million. The analysis highlights a severe short-term shock in 2020, with an additional 14 million people falling below the US$1.90 poverty threshold. Economic consequences include an expected increase in debt by 5 to 9 percentage points of GDP and a heightened dependence on international aid due to domestic economic contraction. The most negatively affected countries are identified as Nigeria, the DR Congo, Ethiopia, Niger, and Tanzania. Other SDG targets, including undernutrition, infant mortality, and education completion rates, are also expected to deteriorate or miss targets further.

The document examines the human and economic impact of the African debt crisis, asserting that high debt costs divert critical fiscal resources from public health, education, and industrial policy. It frames the crisis not merely as a result of poor governance, but as a product of a global system based on neo-colonialism. While borrowing is described as a standard tool to bridge revenue gaps for urgent needs, the text notes that Africa collectively owes approximately $746 billion, a burden that hinders job creation and economic growth.

FSD Africa expresses its support for the second Africa Climate Summit (ACS2) in Addis Ababa, emphasizing the need to mobilize domestic private capital and demonstrate that climate investment and economic growth are complementary goals.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) contends that the National Treasury's focus on debt stabilisation through budget cuts and a proposed binding fiscal rule will hinder South Africa's goal of 3% GDP growth by 2027. The IEJ asserts that fiscal rules lack a proven causal relationship with debt outcomes and that economic growth is a more effective tool for improving debt dynamics. To achieve a sustainable fiscal path, the IEJ recommends maintaining social wage expenditure, increasing revenue by cutting tax rebates for high-income earners, and prioritising state-led investment in social and economic infrastructure.

The Institute for Economic Justice argues that rigid fiscal rules are an ineffective tool for managing South Africa's debt, as they often lead to 'creative' accounting, limit democratic engagement, and fail to address the root cause of the crisis: high borrowing costs. Drawing on case studies from Brazil and Indonesia, the brief suggests that economic growth is more effective than numerical constraints in improving debt dynamics. The authors recommend focusing on reducing borrowing costs through Reserve Bank intervention and capital management, increasing revenue via taxes on high-income earners and wealth, and using fiscal policy to drive structural economic transformation and growth.

The document analyzes South Africa's care regime, emphasizing that both paid and unpaid care work are fundamental to economic stability and societal well-being. It highlights the systemic undervaluation of caregiving, which disproportionately burdens women and hinders economic participation. The author proposes a transformative national care policy that integrates an ethic of care into social policy to promote inclusive growth and address inequities based on race, gender, and economic status.

The Institute for Economic Justice argues against the National Treasury's proposal for a binding fiscal rule in South Africa, claiming it misdiagnoses the debt problem by focusing on the quantum of debt rather than the cost of borrowing. Drawing on case studies from Brazil and Indonesia, the paper asserts that fiscal rules often lead to 'creative accounting', inappropriate budget cuts to social services, and reduced flexibility during crises, without necessarily lowering borrowing costs. The authors suggest that sustainable public finances can only be achieved through economic expansion, progressive revenue mobilization, and direct interventions to lower interest rates.

The Universal Basic Income Coalition (UBIC) produced a scorecard to assess political parties' positions on basic income grants (BIG) in South Africa. The analysis focuses on whether parties commit to expanding the social protection floor, providing adequate grant values, ensuring universal eligibility for adults aged 18-59, and removing conditionalities. The report highlights a wide disparity in party commitments, with Action SA, the ANC, and GOOD scoring highly for their progressive proposals, while many other parties either lack a clear policy or propose conditional grants that UBIC argues could increase exclusion and dependency.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) asserts that South Africa has failed to mobilise its maximum available resources, leading to unnecessary cuts in social service spending. The brief proposes a shift toward proactive resource mobilisation, specifically through taxing wealth and financial transactions, restoring Corporate Income Tax rates, and reducing tax exemptions for the wealthy. It further suggests renegotiating debt terms and leveraging reserves to create a more equitable economic framework and fulfill constitutional and international socioeconomic obligations.

The document argues that a Basic Income Grant (BIG) is affordable and sustainable for South Africa, potentially reducing poverty by up to two-thirds and increasing GDP growth from 2.2% to between 2.8% and 3.5% by 2030. It presents three modelling scenarios (low, medium, and high ambition) funded through a combination of wealth taxes, a social security tax, and increased VAT revenue generated by stimulated consumption. The analysis suggests that the net cost of a UBIG could be as low as 50% of its gross cost due to the 'multiplier effect' and tax clawbacks.

The document examines the fiscal sustainability of South African municipalities during periods of economic instability. It finds that while municipal operating revenues show some resilience during extreme downturns, they are generally sensitive to economic declines, often with a time lag. The analysis highlights that national fiscal consolidation efforts since 2013 led to real declines in intergovernmental transfers, which significantly impacted municipal operating and capital revenues. Furthermore, the brief notes that economic shocks affect metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas asymmetrically, with metros experiencing higher growth in poverty levels despite generally faster economic growth. The author calls for a more integrated national strategy to protect local government during fiscal shifts and emphasizes the need for improved municipal financial reporting accuracy.

The IEJ argues that South Africa's current fiscal strategy over-prioritizes stability and business confidence at the expense of poverty and inequality. The submission recommends replacing austerity with a developmental framework that includes increasing the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant to the Food Poverty Line, implementing a wealth tax, and reducing reliance on private finance for growth.

The document advocates for a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) in South Africa, defining it as a government commitment to ensure all adults receive a basic income to meet essential needs. It highlights that current social grants, while effective, leave a gap for adults aged 18 to 59. The text argues that UBIG would not only reduce poverty and hunger—noting that 18.3 million people lack sufficient income for basic food—but also improve health, education, gender equality, and local economic growth.

The fact sheet presents modeling by the Institute for Economic Justice and Applied Development Research Solutions showing that a basic income grant in South Africa is fiscally sustainable and would positively impact GDP growth, poverty, and unemployment. It outlines three ambition levels (low, medium, and high) for the grant's value and coverage, funded through a combination of wealth taxes, a social security tax, and VAT revenue generated by increased consumption. The document argues that the net cost of such a program is significantly lower than the gross cost due to the economic multiplier effect in poor communities.

The fact sheet challenges the narrative that social grants discourage work or hinder economic growth in South Africa. It argues that income support actually increases autonomy, enables job seeking by reducing poverty, and stimulates local economies through a multiplier effect. The document advocates for a Guaranteed Universal Basic Income (UBIG) to address structural poverty, support unpaid care work—primarily performed by women—and provide workers with the leverage to refuse exploitative employment.

The document challenges the notion that social grants create a 'cycle of dependency' or hinder economic growth in South Africa. It argues that basic income supports job seekers by reducing poverty-related barriers, stimulates local economies through increased spending, and provides a safety net that empowers workers to negotiate better wages and conditions. The text emphasizes that employment and social support are complementary rather than contradictory, particularly for unpaid caregivers and those in structural poverty.

The document challenges the belief that social grants discourage work, asserting instead that unconditional cash transfers can increase labor market participation and stimulate local economies. It argues that because structural poverty in South Africa prevents many from succeeding through hard work alone, and because essential unpaid care work (primarily by women) is ignored by traditional employment metrics, a UBIG is necessary to ensure a dignified life and provide a safety net that empowers workers to negotiate better conditions.

The document challenges the notion that social grants discourage work, asserting instead that a basic income guarantee supports labor market participation by reducing poverty and providing a safety net. It provides evidence from South Africa and other Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) to show that cash transfers can stimulate local economies, improve educational outcomes, and empower workers to seek better employment conditions. The text emphasizes that UBIG is particularly essential for women, who perform significant unpaid care work, and for the millions of South Africans living in poverty due to systemic economic structures.

The document outlines three financial pathways (low, medium, and high effort) to implement a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) for South Africans aged 18 to 59. Using a simulation model developed with Applied Development Research Solutions (ADRS), the Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) argues that a UBIG is fiscally sustainable and would stimulate economic growth, reduce poverty, and lower unemployment. The analysis suggests that while gross costs are high, the net cost is significantly reduced by VAT returns and a proposed social security tax (SST). Funding mechanisms include progressive wealth taxes on the top 1% of the population, luxury VAT, and the reduction of tax subsidies for pensions and medical aid.