Search Climate Insights Directory

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) advocates for a nationally owned development finance strategy to address debt distress and the climate crisis. In South Africa, the IEJ focuses on increasing transparency for international financial institution (IFI) loans and ensuring that the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JET-P) prioritizes public good over private profit through fair risk-sharing and expanded policy tools.

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) issued a statement on 19 February 2025 regarding the Cabinet's decision to postpone the national budget to 12 March 2025. The IEJ criticizes the withdrawn budget for proposing a regressive VAT increase and failing to adequately resource government priorities, while urging the National Treasury to adopt progressive revenue-raising measures and a developmental fiscal policy.

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 research paper assesses the capacity of public DFIs and Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) to mobilise climate finance, focusing on a case study of South Africa's Industrial Development Corporation (IDC). It argues that the IDC's current self-financing model and commercial risk appetite hinder its ability to provide the 'patient capital' necessary for a just transition. The authors propose recapitalising the IDC through fiscal and monetary instruments, scaling concessional lending, and democratising its governance to better align with green industrialisation and worker-centric goals.

The document examines the role of DFIs in climate finance, specifically focusing on the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) in South Africa. It argues that the IDC is currently unable to meet its mandate of supporting a just transition because it operates like a commercial bank, relying on capital markets and maintaining a risk-averse, private-sector-biased governance structure. The authors recommend a significant recapitalisation of the IDC through fiscal and monetary policy, a shift toward concessional lending with longer grace periods, and a reform of its board to include broader representation from civil society and workers.

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 (IEJ) advocates for increased finance from international financial institutions, multilateral development banks, and the G20 to support a green, inclusive, and just transition. The IEJ emphasizes the need for nationally-owned development strategies where the state leads investment, leveraging central banks and development finance institutions to encourage private capital. In South Africa, the IEJ has specifically critiqued the lack of transparency in IFI loan agreements, calling for parliamentary oversight to protect national sovereignty and human rights. Regarding climate finance, the IEJ argues that South Africa's Just Energy Transition Partnership (JET-P) should utilize risk-sharing arrangements in public-private partnerships that do not prioritize private profits over public goods. Additionally, the IEJ advocates for a human-rights-based approach to debt restructuring in the Global South, proposing that loans be provided on concessional terms with below-market-rate interest and long grace periods.

The document critiques the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) for focusing on electricity infrastructure over economic diversification and worker needs. It argues that the South African Reserve Bank's (SARB) current inflation-targeting framework and operational independence hinder developmental goals. The author proposes a shift toward 'promotional' central banking, utilizing underexploited liquidity in the banking and retirement sectors—estimated at R52.41bn from banks and potentially R600bn from retirement funds via offshore limit reductions. Key recommendations include reforming the South African Green Finance Taxonomy (SAGFT), implementing mandatory climate risk disclosures, and using credit allocation tools such as targeted refinancing operations, green-differentiated capital requirements, and state investment banks.

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 examines how South Africa's current growth model and monetary governance reinforce a capital-intensive economy and inequality. It identifies significant unexploited liquidity in the banking and retirement sectors and proposes reforms to the South African Green Finance Taxonomy (SAGFT), the adoption of corporate transition plans, and the use of direct and indirect credit allocation tools to fund a just transition for workers.

The North Gauteng High Court ruled in favor of the Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) and #PayTheGrants, finding that the South African government's administration of the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant was unconstitutional. The court determined that the grant is not a temporary measure and that the government used 'ulterior' motives to exclude eligible applicants through restrictive regulations, such as a solely online application process and inaccurate database checks. The judgment requires the government to allow in-person applications, redefine 'insufficient means' to exclude irregular monetary inflows, and develop a plan within four months to increase the grant's value and means-test threshold in line with the cost of living. Additionally, the court struck down budget caps that limited the number of beneficiaries and ordered SASSA to rectify payment delays affecting 10-15% of successful applicants.

The document examines fraud within South Africa's social grant system, asserting that while the government focuses on policing beneficiaries, the majority of significant fraud is perpetrated by state officials and contractors. It details various types of fraud, including the theft of funds by SASSA and Post Office employees, and criticizes the government's current verification tools—such as automated computer systems, bank statement checks, and biometric verification—for erroneously flagging eligible poor people as fraudsters. The report concludes that these measures create barriers for the elderly and disabled, effectively 'robbing' them of their rights to social assistance.

This factsheet by the Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) examines the systemic failures and high exclusion rates associated with South Africa's Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant, arguing that narrow targeting and administrative barriers prevent eligible vulnerable individuals from accessing support.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) expresses concern over contradictions between President Cyril Ramaphosa's promises of a permanent basic income support system and the National Treasury's actions. The IEJ highlights budget cuts in the October 2024 Medium Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS), the potential migration of other social grants to an exclusionary online-only system, and Treasury's legal claims that the SRD grant was only a temporary Covid-19 response. The organization calls for a clear roadmap to basic income and an end to austerity-driven measures that exclude eligible beneficiaries.

The fact sheet proposes a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) as a tool to support South Africa's Just Energy Transition (JET). It argues that while the shift to renewables is necessary for climate goals, it threatens coal-dependent industries and communities. A UBIG would provide a non-conditional financial safety net to cushion economic shocks, build resilience against climate crises, and ensure that the risks and benefits of the energy transition are redistributed equitably, particularly for vulnerable groups like informal workers and caregivers.

The report critiques the current South African social assistance framework, specifically the SRD grant, as inadequate due to its low value and restrictive digital means testing. It contrasts a 'fiscal consolidation' approach favored by the National Treasury and international financial institutions with a rights-based approach advocated by civil society and the Department of Social Development. The authors recommend transitioning the SRD grant into a permanent basic income grant pegged to national poverty lines, funded through non-regressive measures like wealth taxes, and supported by inclusive consultative structures and secure digital systems.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) conducted a mixed-methods study involving 900 survey respondents and 58 interviews in Durban and rural North West to analyze exclusions from the SRD grant. The research found a monthly average erroneous exclusion rate of 89.7% among eligible respondents, with only 10.3% of eligible participants receiving payments. Key drivers of exclusion include a flawed bank verification system that counts non-income inflows (such as child maintenance or loans) as 'means', digital barriers due to online-only applications, and language barriers from an English-only process. The study highlights that marginalized groups—including women, rural dwellers, and those with lower education levels—are at higher risk of exclusion. Furthermore, 98% of 10 million grant appeals in the 2023/24 financial year were unsuccessful. The IEJ recommends transitioning toward a universal basic income, reforming the appeals process, and increasing grant values to align with the food poverty line.