Search Climate Insights Directory

The document compares the macroeconomic resilience of Benin and Togo from 2000 to 2020, finding that Benin's economy was more volatile due to greater global integration, while Togo's performance was shielded by phosphate exports. Benin demonstrated more consistent counter-cyclical fiscal policy, whereas Togo's government spending tended to be procyclical during national crises. The brief recommends that Benin reduce its debt-to-GDP ratio and expand its tax base, while Togo should implement governance reforms and monitor inflation more closely.

India faces significant climate vulnerability, with adaptation investment needs estimated between USD 14 billion and USD 67 billion annually for 2015-2030. While the government utilizes a 'co-benefits' approach—integrating adaptation into broader development goals—this makes it difficult to track specific adaptation funding. Analysis of six states' updated State Action Plans on Climate Change (SAPCCs) reveals a collective annual investment need of INR 444.7 billion (USD 5.5 billion) for 2021-30. State governments are the primary drivers of adaptation finance, but their capacity is constrained by high debt levels and strict borrowing limits under the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act. The report recommends that the 16th Finance Commission include adaptation variables in fund devolution and suggests using Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) and blended finance to attract private capital, which is currently limited by data gaps and uncertain returns.

The Institute for Economic Justice argues that South Africa's National Treasury has unnecessarily cut social spending by failing to mobilize available resources. The brief identifies significant revenue potential through the removal of regressive tax breaks for high earners, the introduction of wealth and financial transaction taxes, and the utilization of the Gold and Foreign Exchange Contingency Reserve Account (GFECRA). It recommends restoring the Corporate Income Tax rate to 28% and implementing a progressive Social Security Tax to fund social protections.

The document evaluates low-, medium-, and high-ambition scenarios for transitioning South Africa's Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant into a more permanent basic income grant (BIG). Using the DIMMSIM model, the research finds that such grants are fiscally sustainable when funded through progressive taxation and lead to significant reductions in poverty and unemployment while boosting GDP growth.

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 research paper assesses three Basic Income Grant (BIG) scenarios for South Africa: Low, Medium, and High Ambition. Using the Dynamically Integrated Macro-Micro Simulation Model (DIMMSIM), the author argues that a BIG can be funded through a combination of a wealth tax, a Social Security Tax (SST), and increased VAT revenue without requiring changes to existing income tax or VAT rates. The findings suggest that such a programme would significantly reduce poverty and inequality while simultaneously boosting GDP growth and employment, contradicting predictions from neoclassical CGE and DSGE models that suggest such transfers lead to economic contraction.

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 argues that methane abatement is a cost-effective way to reduce near-term warming but remains severely underfinanced. It identifies a financing gap of USD 34 billion per year to reach a needed USD 48 billion per year by 2030. The brief proposes five priority areas: implementing stringent regulations and fiscal tools, embedding methane abatement in institutional strategies, deepening investment opportunities through concessional finance, funding R&D for scalable technologies, and improving monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) capacity. It provides specific action paths for domestic policy makers (e.g., banning non-emergency flaring), international financial institutions (e.g., using blended finance and technical assistance), and private actors (e.g., incorporating methane targets into net zero pledges).

This fact sheet by the Institute for Economic Justice advocates for a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) in South Africa over targeted grants. It contends that targeting often fails to reach the most needy due to administrative barriers and unreliable data, citing research where some targeted programs had exclusion errors exceeding 90%. The document asserts that a universal system is more efficient, prevents people from falling through the cracks, and allows households to pool resources more effectively. It suggests that a transition to a universal system could begin by targeting specific demographics before expanding to all adults.

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 document presents three implementation pathways (low, medium, and high levels) for a UBIG in South Africa, arguing that such a grant would reduce poverty and stimulate economic growth. It details the fiscal impact, suggesting that while gross costs are high, net costs are lower due to VAT returns and proposed progressive taxes, including a social security tax and wealth taxes.

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.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) defends its analysis of South Africa's fiscal position against claims by Tim Cohen, arguing that the National Treasury's narrative of an acute fiscal crisis is being used to justify budget cuts that would harm the vulnerable and hinder long-term growth.

The document argues that planned budget cuts in South Africa are misguided and dangerous, potentially slowing economic growth and undermining social protection. The authors contend that the current 'fiscal crisis' is manageable through alternative measures, such as drawing on reserves, increasing short-term borrowing, and raising revenue from high earners and corporate tax adjustments, rather than indiscriminate spending cuts.

The author contends that South Africa is failing to realize its economic potential due to policies that promote financialization and austerity over productive growth and social support. The text highlights the extreme wealth inequality in the country and criticizes the National Treasury's opposition to extending the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant. It argues that the current fiscal challenges are manageable and that austerity is counterproductive to growth, suggesting instead a model of decisive political leadership and state-led development to avoid a 'social cliff'.

A coalition of civil society organisations and policy analysts opposes the South African National Treasury's plan for immediate, indiscriminate budget cuts to address revenue shortfalls and expenditure overruns. The authors argue that such cuts would stifle economic growth, worsen unemployment and hunger, and fail to reduce debt-to-GDP ratios. They propose alternative solutions, including drawing on the SA Reserve Bank's gold and foreign exchange contingency reserve account, reducing tax breaks for high earners, and implementing a wealth tax, while calling for a transparent, evidence-based budget review process over 12 months.

The document argues that planned budget cuts in South Africa are misguided and dangerous, potentially slowing economic growth and undermining social protections. The signatories contend that the current 'fiscal crisis' is exaggerated, noting that the projected R53 billion revenue shortfall is comparable to previous years. They propose alternative solutions to close budget mismatches, such as drawing on the SARB’s Gold and Foreign Exchange Contingency Reserve Account, reducing tax breaks for high earners, and implementing a wealth tax.

The Institute for Economic Justice argues that South Africa is not facing an unprecedented fiscal crisis, despite claims from the National Treasury. While revenue for 2023/24 is projected to grow by only 0.55% (missing targets by R54.2-billion) and spending is expected to exceed budgets by between R67.8-billion and R105.8-billion, the document asserts these deviations are consistent with historical norms. It contends that the overspend results from inadequate planning, specifically regarding public sector wages and essential social services. With a debt-to-GDP ratio of 71.4% in 2022/23, the document claims South Africa's debt levels are in line with emerging market averages, although debt service costs remain unusually high. The authors warn that austerity measures and budget cuts would hamper economic growth and increase long-term debt vulnerability, recommending instead a developmental fiscal policy focused on employment, poverty reduction, and productive capacity.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) argues that South Africa's projected budget deficit of 6.29% for 2023/24 is within historical norms and does not constitute a financial crisis. The IEJ estimates a revenue shortfall of R52.4 billion and an expenditure overrun between R67.9 billion and R105.8 billion, the latter driven largely by a R37.5 billion public sector wage bill increase. To close this gap without resorting to GDP-contracting budget cuts, the IEJ proposes utilizing the Reserve Bank's Gold and Foreign Exchange Contingency Reserve Account, increasing short-term borrowing, and raising revenue by removing tax breaks for high-income earners and corporates. The IEJ warns that fiscal contractions larger than 1.5% of GDP can lead to long-term negative effects on GDP and urges the protection of social programmes like the Social Relief of Distress grant.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) asserts that South Africa's current revenue shortfall and expenditure overspend are within historical norms and do not constitute a 'fiscal crisis'. The IEJ estimates a revenue shortfall of R67.2 billion and an expenditure overspend of R67.9 billion for 2023/24, noting that the debt-to-GDP ratio of 71.4% in 2022/23 is comparable to the emerging market average of 69%. The document warns that indiscriminate budget cuts exceeding 1.5% of GDP could cause significant economic contraction. To resolve budget mismatches without austerity, the IEJ suggests utilizing the Reserve Bank’s Gold and Foreign Exchange Contingency Reserve Account, increasing short-term borrowing, removing tax breaks for high-income earners and corporates, and restructuring Eskom debt.