Search Climate Insights Directory

The statement emphasizes that while Africa possesses significant natural and financial capital, power imbalances in the international financial architecture hinder its mobilization. It highlights the severe impact of illicit financial flows and debt servicing on public services and calls for a collaborative approach between the African Development Bank, governments, and civil society to ensure transparent, sustainable, and equitable financial governance.

The IEJ argues that the current debt-reduction strategy is ineffective and suppresses economic growth. It recommends rejecting regressive taxes, such as VAT increases and the freeze on personal income tax brackets, while proposing progressive alternatives like wealth taxes and reinstating the corporate income tax rate to fund social protection and infrastructure.

The IEJ argues that South Africa's 2025 budget continues a pattern of fiscal consolidation and austerity that stifles economic growth and fails to meet constitutional obligations. The document criticizes the use of regressive tax measures, such as the general fuel levy increase and frozen personal income tax brackets, and highlights insufficient spending on healthcare, education, and social grants. It specifically calls for the expansion of the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant and a shift away from Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) in infrastructure. The IEJ proposes alternative revenue sources, including increasing the Corporate Income Tax (CIT) rate to 28% and utilizing the Gold and Foreign Exchange Contingency Reserve Account (GFECRA), while recommending a more aggressive approach to debt management and wealth taxation.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) criticizes South Africa's Budget 3.0 as an 'austerity budget' that reverses previous spending gains. The IEJ highlights significant reductions in non-interest spending, social grants, and infrastructure projects compared to earlier budget versions. The document argues that the government is relying on regressive revenue measures, such as fuel levy increases and unadjusted income tax brackets, while ignoring progressive alternatives and failing to utilize available reserves like the GFECRA.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) calls for a break from National Treasury's austerity policies in the 2025 National Budget. The IEJ argues that spending cuts harm the poor and hinder long-term growth, and proposes specific immediate and medium-term tax reforms to fill revenue gaps created by the reversal of a proposed VAT increase. These proposals include restoring Corporate Income Tax to 28%, removing tax breaks for high-income earners, and implementing wealth and financial transaction taxes.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) welcomes the reversal of a VAT hike but warns that the National Treasury should not use the resulting revenue shortfall to implement budget cuts. The IEJ argues that the Treasury's claim of a R75 billion shortfall over the medium term is a 'false binary' and suggests alternative funding sources, such as tapping into the Gold and Foreign Exchange Reserve Account (GFECRA), removing tax breaks for high-income earners, and raising the Corporate Income Tax rate.

The report examines Indonesia's path toward net-zero emissions by 2060, highlighting a significant gap between current investment levels and the estimated annual need of USD 73–76 billion. It argues that foreign climate finance is often debt-heavy and unreliable, urging a shift toward domestic funding and structural reforms. The analysis covers the banking sector's limited capacity to finance renewable energy, the underperformance of the national carbon market, and the socioeconomic disparities in energy access. It proposes an "Indonesian Way" consisting of eight strategic actions, including targeted subsidies and the development of a domestic clean-tech ecosystem, to ensure a just and sovereign transition.

The author contends that prioritizing military spending over green and social investments risks exacerbating Europe's vulnerabilities to climate change and social fragmentation. The text calls for a revision of EU fiscal rules to allow borrowing for high-multiplier public investments and suggests new revenue streams, such as taxes on centimillionaires, to fund these needs.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) criticizes the 2025 National Budget for maintaining a fiscal strategy focused on debt stabilization and regressive taxation, specifically the proposed VAT increases and personal income tax bracket freezes. While acknowledging a shift away from explicit spending cuts, the IEJ argues that expenditure increases in health, education, and social grants remain insufficient to restore pre-pandemic service levels or address food insecurity. The statement calls for Parliament to amend the budget by increasing corporate tax, removing tax breaks for high earners, and expanding the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant.

A joint statement by civil society organisations demanding the censure of South African Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana. The organisations argue that the Minister used a press interview to mislead the public by claiming the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant caused budget constraints, thereby attempting to justify a VAT increase and bypass government policy. They propose alternative revenue-raising measures, such as wealth taxes and removing corporate tax incentives, to avoid harming the poor.

The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) and the Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) oppose a proposed VAT increase in South Africa, claiming it disproportionately harms low-income households, African women, and people with disabilities. They argue that such a regressive tax is incongruent with the constitutional mandate for transformative governance and social justice. Instead, the organizations advocate for progressive alternatives, including wealth taxes, increased company tax, and improved tax collection efficiency, to address budget shortfalls without exacerbating hunger and poverty.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development calls for the inclusion of natural resource taxation in the FfD4 outcome document, noting that the current zero draft overlooks this critical revenue source. The author highlights that resource rents are vital for many lower- and middle-income countries but are often undermined by tax avoidance and weak governance. The statement proposes specific amendments to the FfD4 draft to ensure fair fiscal terms and better benefit-sharing, particularly regarding critical energy transition minerals.

The paper proposes a state-led fiscal strategy for South Africa's energy transition, centered on a climate response fund. It recommends mobilizing domestic resources through carbon taxes, fuel levies, and mineral royalties, alongside the issuance of climate bonds. The goal is to protect vulnerable workers, particularly in coal-dependent regions like Mpumalanga, and provide an estimated R100 billion annually for climate priorities.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) critiques the South African National Treasury's focus on debt stabilisation through expenditure cuts and a proposed 2 percentage point VAT increase. The IEJ argues that such a VAT hike would harm poor households and may not generate substantial revenue due to potential decreases in consumer spending. Instead, the IEJ proposes six alternative revenue-raising strategies: improving SARS's collection capacity, drawing from the GFECRA account, removing unnecessary tax breaks, implementing a differentiated VAT system for luxury items, raising corporate and high-income tax rates, and taxing wealth. The document also suggests lowering the cost of borrowing through capital management and replacing broad expenditure cuts with a transparent spending review process.

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 (IEJ) argues that South Africa's Medium-Term Development Plan (MTDP) will fail if the National Treasury continues a "dogma of austerity" focused on debt reduction and primary budget surpluses. The IEJ proposes a fiscal framework based on six pillars: prioritizing unemployment and poverty reduction over debt rules, taxing the wealthy to raise resources, centering the state in infrastructure investment, directing spending toward labor-intensive sectors, maintaining social wage expenditure, and conducting evidence-based spending reviews. The document highlights that current disinvestment in health and education, combined with an overreliance on Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs), undermines human capital and economic growth.

The research paper advocates for South Africa to move away from a market-led 'blended finance model' (BFM) for its just energy transition, arguing that market failures necessitate a state-led approach. The author proposes a 'climate response fund' to be financed by a combination of carbon tax increases, earmarking the General Fuel Levy and Mineral and Petroleum Resource Royalty, and implementing public sector efficiency reforms and retirement tax deduction caps. Together, these measures could generate over R100 billion annually for adaptation and equity. The paper also suggests the issuance of sovereign green bonds to fund renewable energy grid infrastructure, arguing for a gentler fiscal deficit glide path to accommodate this strategic investment.

The policy brief contends that South Africa must move beyond the blended finance model for its just energy transition due to market failures and risks of insufficient or unpredictable private capital. It proposes a suite of domestic resource mobilisation (DRM) measures—including sovereign green bonds, carbon tax reforms, and earmarking existing revenues—to generate approximately R100bn annually for climate priorities. These funds would be pooled into a central climate response fund dedicated to adaptation, equity, and supporting displaced workers, particularly in Mpumalanga. The author argues that this assertive domestic commitment is essential for maintaining state control over infrastructure and for unlocking larger-scale international finance between 2030 and 2050.

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 contains technical appendices for a report on reforming environmentally harmful subsidies (EHS). It introduces a 'Fiscal Pressure' indicator to identify countries where high debt and deficits create strong incentives for subsidy reform, and provides a stakeholder analysis mapping the influence and attitudes of businesses, governments, consumers, and civil society toward EHS reform.