Search Climate Insights Directory

The document outlines how a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG)—defined as a government commitment to ensure all adults receive a basic income as a right—can break the cycle of poverty. It highlights evidence that cash transfers improve child nutrition and growth, reduce depression and increase life satisfaction, and increase school enrollment and adult retraining. The text specifically references the positive impacts of the Child Support Grant in South Africa and similar programs in Namibia, India, Kenya, and Tanzania.

The document outlines how a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) serves as a tool to break the cycle of poverty by improving physical health, mental well-being, and educational attainment. It cites evidence from South Africa, Namibia, India, Kenya, and Tanzania to demonstrate that cash transfers reduce child malnutrition, increase school enrollment, and lower psychological stress. The text positions UBIG as an investment in human capital that supports lifelong learning and prepares workers for a green economy.

The document advocates for a guaranteed universal basic income (UBIG) in South Africa, defining it as a regular state cash transfer provided as a right to all adults. It argues that UBIG addresses structural gender inequalities by providing women with financial independence, recognizing unpaid care work, and reducing intimate partner violence. Additionally, it asserts that UBIG enhances social cohesion by reducing crime and increasing civic participation, provided the system is universal and unconditional to avoid social stigma.

The document advocates for a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG), defined as a government commitment to ensure all adults receive a minimum income to meet basic needs. It asserts that UBIG provides the stability necessary for individuals to invest in skills, education, and small businesses, thereby breaking the cycle of poverty. Using evidence from cash transfer pilots in Sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, and other regions, the text highlights how these payments lead to increased agricultural productivity, business growth, and a 'multiplier effect' that boosts the broader local and national economy through increased spending.

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 evaluates basic income proposals in South Africa against a framework of benefit adequacy, population coverage, and non-regressive financing to determine their potential for inclusive development amidst severe inequality and unemployment.

The document argues that IFI loans, such as those from the World Bank and IMF, pose risks to South Africa's economic stability and human rights. It calls for parliamentary oversight, public disclosure of agreements, and gender-responsive budgeting to prevent austerity and protect vulnerable populations.

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.

This policy brief by the Institute for Economic Justice argues that the 'fiscal crisis' reported by South Africa's National Treasury is exaggerated for political reasons and can be managed without destructive budget cuts, while warning that long-term sustainability depends on economic expansion.

The Universal Basic Income Coalition (UBIC) advocates for a rights-based social protection floor in South Africa, specifically a universal basic income (UBI) for adults aged 18-59. The coalition argues that current systems leave a gap for able-bodied working-age adults, contributing to extreme poverty and inequality. They propose a grant that is universal, unconditional, and redistributive, funded through progressive taxation rather than regressive measures like VAT. The UBIC suggests a progressive realization of this goal, starting with the expansion of the COVID-19 Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant, with the ultimate target of pegging the grant value to the Upper Bound Poverty Line (UBPL). They emphasize that UBI should be an individual rather than household-based payment to protect women's autonomy and should be part of a broader wellbeing framework including job creation and improved public services.

The document explores the 'care economy'—the system of paid and unpaid activities that sustain human life—tracing its roots from the 1970s Wages for Housework movement to modern policy frameworks like the 3R/5R models. It critiques neoliberal 'human capital' approaches that view care primarily as a tool for economic growth and highlights how care in the Global South differs from the Global North due to the prevalence of non-capitalist production and infrastructure gaps. The paper concludes that the Covid-19 pandemic exposed the systemic fragility of care structures and the tokenistic nature of 'essential worker' labels, calling for a transformative justice approach to care.

The submission critiques the National Treasury's use of IFI loans, highlighting how World Bank conditionalities and IMF variable interest rates restrict policy autonomy and increase financial risk. It specifically warns that the Just Energy Transition Investment Plan (JET-IP) may exacerbate debt dependency. The authors call for mandatory parliamentary oversight, human rights impact assessments, and gender-responsive budgeting for all future IFI lending.

The Institute for Economic Justice criticizes the South African National Treasury for presenting expenditure cuts as the only solution to a 'fiscal cliff'. The author argues that austerity leads to the collapse of critical services, increased poverty, and long-term GDP decline. Proposed alternatives include removing tax breaks for high earners, returning the corporate income tax rate to 28%, and lowering borrowing costs through state-mandated lending and capital controls.