Search Climate Insights Directory

The document advocates for a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG), defined as a government commitment to ensure all adults receive a regular payment sufficient to meet basic needs. It argues that UBIG is not merely a safety net but a tool for economic empowerment and growth. Evidence from Kenya, Zambia, Mexico, and Namibia is cited to show that guaranteed income allows people to invest in education, start small businesses, and increase agricultural production. Furthermore, the text highlights a 'multiplier effect' where cash transfers stimulate local economies, citing examples from Ghana and Zambia where spending by low-income recipients boosted local business activity and overall national income.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) criticises the South African National Treasury's 2022 Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS) for maintaining a path of austerity and fiscal consolidation since 2012. The IEJ asserts that prioritising debt stabilisation over developmental goals leads to declining expenditure per learner in basic education and real-term cuts in healthcare spending. The document also highlights the failure to adjust the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant for inflation and the exclusion of 3.5 million people from the grant due to stringent criteria. While noting positive infrastructure investment and Eskom debt absorption, the IEJ warns that Eskom's unbundling and private sector participation may lead to higher tariffs. The IEJ advocates for progressive taxation to fund public services and reduce income inequality.

The document advocates for a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) in South Africa, defining it as a regular cash transfer provided as a right to all adults to cover basic necessities. It argues that a UBIG is superior to targeted grants, which often suffer from high exclusion errors and administrative complexity. The series presents evidence that basic income support improves health, education, and mental well-being, particularly for children, and empowers women by reducing their economic dependence on men and vulnerability to intimate partner violence. Economically, it contends that UBIGs do not create dependency or discourage work; instead, they can stimulate local economies through a multiplier effect and provide workers with an 'exit option' from exploitative labor. The document proposes financing the UBIG through progressive taxation, including a social security tax, wealth taxes, and the removal of subsidies for the wealthy, estimating a gross annual cost of R255 billion if set at the Food Poverty Line, which would be significantly offset by VAT recoupment and economic growth.

The Institute for Economic Justice advocates for a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) in South Africa, defining it as a government commitment to ensure all adults have a regular cash benefit to meet basic needs as a right. The document highlights that while social grants have been effective, gaps remain for able-bodied adults aged 18-59, and the current Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant is temporary and limited. It asserts that a UBIG, supported by complementary policies like a just energy transition and industrial policy, could eliminate poverty for the 18.3 million people unable to meet basic food needs, improve health and education, and reduce gender inequality.

The fact sheet compares universal and targeted basic income systems, arguing that targeting often fails due to high exclusion errors and administrative complexity. It posits that a UBIG ensures no one is left behind, reduces state administrative burdens, and provides greater poverty impact through household income pooling, particularly in South Africa.

The document argues that a UBIG in South Africa is fiscally feasible through progressive taxation and economic stimulus effects. It estimates the gross annual cost of a grant set at the Food Poverty Line (R624/month) at R255 billion, though actual costs would be lower based on uptake rates (R153 billion at 60% and R204 billion at 80%). The net cost is further reduced by a 'multiplier effect' and VAT recoupment, with the document suggesting that the net cost could be as low as 50% of the gross cost. Proposed funding sources include a social security tax, a wealth tax on the top 1% (potentially raising R143 billion), luxury VAT, and the reduction of retirement fund subsidies.

The IEJ criticizes South Africa's current fiscal strategy of austerity and debt stabilisation, arguing it has led to a 'lost decade' of low investment and increased inequality. The document details real-term budget cuts in basic education and healthcare, and the lack of a permanent replacement for the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant. To reverse these trends, the IEJ proposes a pro-macroeconomic framework using counter-cyclical spending and a progressive tax regime—including a wealth tax, a resource rent tax, and the reversal of corporate income tax cuts—to fund public services and a Universal Basic Income Guarantee.

The document critiques the administrative barriers and restrictive eligibility of the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant, arguing that a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) would more effectively reduce poverty and strengthen household resilience. It advocates for financing this system through wealth taxes and progressive reforms rather than regressive taxation like VAT increases.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) proposes a shift away from fiscal consolidation toward a macroeconomic framework that prioritizes social infrastructure, public services, and a just energy transition. Key recommendations include expanding the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant into a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG), increasing public infrastructure investment to R900 billion, and restructuring Eskom's R400 billion debt to facilitate renewable energy investment. The IEJ also advocates for progressive taxation, including reversing the Corporate Income Tax reduction and utilizing windfall taxes to fund industrial policy and social protection.

The report examines the intersection of air pollution and labor markets in East and Southeast Asia, highlighting a significant gap in research and policy regarding informal workers. It finds that while formal sectors are regulated, informal workers—including street vendors and agricultural laborers—face high exposure with minimal social protection. Health burdens are highest in China and Mongolia for ambient pollution, and in Cambodia, Lao PDR, and Myanmar for household pollution. The report argues that current solutions are overly technocentric and fail to address the social inequalities and structural vulnerabilities that determine exposure levels.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) criticizes proposals by South Africa's National Treasury and Presidency to replace the R350 Covid-19 SRD grant. The IEJ argues that Treasury's plan is designed to maximize exclusion through complex categorizations and conditionalities, such as job-seeking requirements, which ignore structural unemployment. The statement warns that these changes could reduce the number of beneficiaries from the current level to approximately 5.5 million, effectively removing support for millions of poor citizens. The IEJ also condemns the government's failure to engage with civil society coalitions in the development of these policies.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) argues that proposals by the National Treasury (NT) and the Presidency to replace the R350 SRD grant with targeted grants are regressive, unconstitutional, and administratively unworkable. The IEJ contends that these proposals prioritize cost-cutting and the exclusion of poor citizens over the primary goal of combating hunger and poverty. Specifically, the IEJ critiques the 'jobseekers grant' for relying on the false premise that structural unemployment can be solved through job-search facilitation, and the 'household grant' for potentially deepening gender power imbalances and reducing the number of beneficiaries. The memo further challenges the National Treasury's claims of unaffordability, asserting that NT ignores the net cost of grants, available tax surpluses, and progressive financing options like a wealth tax or Social Security Tax. The IEJ advocates for a universal basic income indexed to the Food Poverty Line, arguing that income support should be a survivalist tool rather than a lever for labor market activation.

The document challenges the belief that social grants create a 'culture of dependency' or discourage labour market participation in South Africa. By reviewing international and local evidence, it argues that cash transfers often facilitate job searches, stimulate local economies, and empower women. The authors advocate for a UBIG indexed to the upper-bound poverty line, funded through progressive taxation, as a means to eliminate poverty while supporting inclusive economic growth.

The research argues that a universal basic income grant (UBIG) in South Africa could move beyond immediate poverty relief to dismantle structural poverty by improving labour market participation, health, women's empowerment, and social cohesion. Drawing on local and international evidence, the authors contend that a UBIG funded through progressive taxation would stimulate local economies via multiplier effects and increase human capital. The paper emphasizes that for a UBIG to be effective, it must be unconditional, universal, and integrated with quality public services, rather than serving as a replacement for them.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) argues that South Africa's current approach to a just transition is dominated by market-based solutions and 'techno-fixes' that preserve a problematic economic structure. The report identifies the Minerals-Energy Complex (MEC) and neoliberal macroeconomic frameworks as primary drivers of both climate emissions and social inequality. To counter this, the IEJ proposes a 'caring rights-based economy' centered on human and planetary well-being, advocating for public ownership of energy, a job guarantee, and restorative justice to address historical losses. The document outlines specific measures across social, industrial, labour, land, and macroeconomic policies to ensure the transition does not exacerbate existing vulnerabilities, particularly for Black women and coal-sector workers.

The report outlines three scenarios for Tunisia's development to 2040: 'Going for Growth', which prioritises industrial production and FDI; 'Leapfrogging', which focuses on ICT and digital innovation; and 'Sustainability & Equality', which emphasises environmental stability and social protection. Across all scenarios, governance interventions are identified as the primary driver of GDP growth relative to the current path.

Civil society is challenging the South African government in the High Court in Pretoria over the social relief of distress (SRD) grant regulations. The litigation targets the R350 monthly means test, which the authors argue is below the food poverty line of R624 and excludes millions of needy citizens. The statement highlights systemic failures, including the non-payment of April and May 2022 grants due to delayed bank verification systems and an online-only application process that creates barriers for the poor. The authors advocate for the replacement of the SRD grant with a permanent universal basic income grant (UBIG) by March 2023 to eliminate poverty and stimulate the economy.

The Institute for Economic Justice argues that bureaucratic delays at SASSA have prevented the payment of April and May 2022 SRD grants, affecting up to 10 million people. The letter proposes emergency measures, such as payment based on applicant declarations or prioritizing previously verified beneficiaries, to prevent widespread hunger.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) challenges the Centre for Development and Enterprise's (CDE) opposition to a basic income grant (BIG) in South Africa. The IEJ argues that social protection, rather than austerity or market-led structural reform, is essential for economic growth. It asserts that cash transfers stimulate labor demand, entrepreneurship, and grassroots productivity, while progressive taxation to fund these grants can lead to positive GDP changes and employment surges without causing economic crises.

The authors argue that South Africa's vulnerability to climate change is rooted in its political economy, specifically the fossil-fuel-dependent 'minerals-energy complex' (MEC). To move beyond simple coping strategies toward 'transformative resilience,' the paper outlines three pillars: a Green Decent Work Agenda (GDWA) to create sustainable livelihoods, social protection (specifically a universal basic income guarantee) to provide safety nets, and radical, state-led land reform to reduce exposure to risk and enhance adaptive capacity.