Search Climate Insights Directory

The IEJ argues that South Africa's Revised Fiscal Framework fails to support inclusive growth and socioeconomic transformation due to a persistent focus on debt stabilisation and austerity. The submission warns that insufficient spending growth relative to inflation and population leads to reduced per-citizen spending, stifling job creation. To address revenue shortfalls, the IEJ proposes removing tax benefits for high earners, introducing a wealth tax, and reviewing the Corporate Income Tax rate.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) criticises the 2024 Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS) as a continuation of 'anti-poor' austerity measures. The IEJ argues that the budget prioritises debt stabilisation over inclusive growth, fails to adequately resource public services, and implements 'savage and unconstitutional' cuts to social grants, specifically the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant. The statement further warns against the use of binding fiscal rules and the shift toward Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) for infrastructure, which the IEJ claims can increase user fees and hinder access for the vulnerable. Additionally, the document notes a decline in funding for industrialisation and agriculture, and criticises the government's lack of progressive revenue-raising measures and its alignment with OECD rather than UN-led international tax cooperation.

The document analyzes South Africa's care regime, emphasizing that both paid and unpaid care work are fundamental to economic stability and societal well-being. It highlights the systemic undervaluation of caregiving, which disproportionately burdens women and hinders economic participation. The author proposes a transformative national care policy that integrates an ethic of care into social policy to promote inclusive growth and address inequities based on race, gender, and economic status.

This factsheet by the Institute for Economic Justice argues against replacing South Africa's R370 Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant with a work-seekers' grant, asserting that work-seeking conditionalities are costly, counter-productive, and unjust.

The document is an open letter from South African civil society, labour organisations, and policy experts arguing that the National Treasury exercises disproportionate influence over government policy, often obstructing the progressive realisation of socio-economic rights. The authors specifically highlight the failure to transition the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant into a permanent basic income system, alleging that Treasury's adherence to an 'austerity' paradigm undermines constitutional mandates and inclusive economic growth.

A coalition of civil society, labour, and policy experts urges President Cyril Ramaphosa to curb the National Treasury's influence over social policy. They argue that Treasury's 'austerity' paradigm and opposition to a permanent basic income grant contradict constitutional obligations and the President's own stated goals, leading to the unfair exclusion of millions from the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant.

The Universal Basic Income Coalition (UBIC) disputes SASSA's claims that a 'spike' in SRD grant applications is driven by fraud. The document asserts that the 17.2 million applications in September 2024 are cumulative and align with eligibility estimates of approximately 17 million people. It argues that SASSA uses fraud narratives to justify an arbitrary budget cap from the National Treasury that only allows payments to 8.5 million people, while internal data shows very few actual fraud cases.

The document examines the contestation over the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant in South Africa, pitting austerity-driven fiscal consolidation supported by the National Treasury, IMF, and World Bank against civil society demands for a universal basic income. It highlights the SRD grant's inadequacy, as its value is only 46% of the food poverty line, and criticizes exclusionary digital verification systems and budget caps that limit access. The authors recommend transitioning the SRD into a permanent, unconditional basic income funded through progressive taxation and an expansionary macroeconomic framework.

The Institute for Economic Justice proposes a universal basic income guarantee (UBIG) as a foundational safety net for South Africa's transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. The document asserts that while targeted support for displaced workers is necessary, a UBIG is essential to cover those indirectly affected, such as informal workers and carers, and to prevent people from falling through gaps in social protection. It highlights international evidence from countries like Bangladesh, Brazil, and Ethiopia to demonstrate how cash transfers mitigate climate-induced crises and reduce negative coping strategies. Furthermore, the text argues that a UBIG facilitates environmental adaptation by providing the financial stability needed for reskilling and sustainable consumption, while promoting a more equitable distribution of climate risks between the Global North and Global South.

The fact sheet examines the crisis of food insecurity in South Africa, asserting that while the country is food secure at a national level, millions of households suffer from hunger due to income poverty. It advocates for a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) as a direct mechanism to ensure all adults can afford basic nutrition, contrasting this with the limitations of current targeted grants and the paternalism of food vouchers. The document also highlights the long-term economic and health costs of malnutrition and argues that a UBIG should be part of a broader strategy including a 'just food transition' to address systemic agricultural issues and climate change risks.

The fact sheet examines the crisis of food insecurity in South Africa, noting that while the country produces enough food, millions lack the income to access it. It highlights the severe health and economic consequences of malnutrition, particularly for children, and argues that existing targeted grants are insufficient. The document proposes a UBIG as a direct mechanism to eliminate hunger, while cautioning that it must be part of a broader strategy including a 'just food transition' to address systemic issues and climate change risks.

The document examines the crisis of hunger and malnutrition in South Africa, asserting that while the country produces enough food, millions suffer from food insecurity due to poverty and income inequality. It advocates for a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) as a primary tool to ensure all citizens can afford nutritious food, thereby breaking the cycle of poverty and improving long-term economic productivity. The text contrasts cash transfers with food vouchers, arguing that cash is more efficient, less prone to corruption, and better for local economies. It also emphasizes that UBIG must be part of a broader strategy including a 'just food transition' to protect food systems from climate change.

The Institute for Economic Justice argues that requiring social grant recipients in South Africa to prove active job-seeking is a flawed policy. It contends that unemployment is structural rather than a result of individual effort, and that conditionality would exclude millions of needy people, increase administrative costs, and potentially lead to labor exploitation and lower wages. The document advocates for an unconditional Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) as a more effective and just alternative.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) argues that requiring social grant recipients in South Africa to prove they are actively seeking work is a flawed policy. The document contends that unemployment in South Africa is structural rather than a result of individual effort, noting an expanded unemployment rate of 42.6% (12.38 million people). It asserts that job-seeking conditions create high administrative costs, penalize caregivers—particularly women—and may force workers into low-wage, exploitative employment. The IEJ advocates for an unconditional Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) as a constitutional right, contrasting this with proposals from the World Bank, National Treasury, and certain political parties to replace the COVID-19 Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant with conditional job-seeker support.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) argues that imposing work-seeking conditions on social grants in South Africa is a flawed policy. It contends that unemployment is driven by structural economic failures rather than a lack of effort from job seekers. The document highlights that the costs of searching for work—estimated at R1,469 per month for youth—far exceed the R370 provided by the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant, making conditionality a barrier to survival. Furthermore, it argues that such requirements violate constitutional rights to social assistance and could lead to labor exploitation by forcing people into low-wage, poor-quality jobs.

The Institute for Economic Justice argues against the National Treasury's proposal for a binding fiscal rule in South Africa, claiming it misdiagnoses the debt problem by focusing on the quantum of debt rather than the cost of borrowing. Drawing on case studies from Brazil and Indonesia, the paper asserts that fiscal rules often lead to 'creative accounting', inappropriate budget cuts to social services, and reduced flexibility during crises, without necessarily lowering borrowing costs. The authors suggest that sustainable public finances can only be achieved through economic expansion, progressive revenue mobilization, and direct interventions to lower interest rates.

The document contends that requiring social grant recipients in South Africa to prove they are actively seeking work is an ineffective policy that ignores the structural nature of the country's unemployment. It argues that such conditions would exclude millions in need, impose high administrative and compliance costs, and violate constitutional rights to social assistance. The author specifically critiques proposals from the World Bank, National Treasury, and political parties (DA and Rise Mzansi) to replace the Covid-19 Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant with a conditional work-seekers' grant, noting that the cost of job searching (approximately R1469 for youth) far exceeds the grant value (R370).

The document examines the link between income poverty and food insecurity in South Africa, arguing that while the country produces enough food, millions lack the means to afford it. It advocates for a Universal Basic Income Guarantee (UBIG) as a primary tool to ensure all citizens can meet basic nutritional needs, thereby reducing malnutrition, stunting, and the long-term economic costs associated with hunger. The text contrasts cash transfers with food vouchers, arguing that cash is more efficient and supportive of local economies. It also emphasizes that UBIG should be part of a broader policy response including a 'just food transition' to address climate change and systemic food system failures.

The document analyzes South Africa's care regime, tracing the impact of the apartheid-era migrant labour system and post-apartheid neoliberal policies like GEAR on the distribution of care. It highlights the systemic undervaluation of both paid and unpaid care work, which predominantly falls on Black women and older persons. The paper critiques the 'familialist' approach of the White Paper on Social Welfare and the underfunding of social welfare services, leading to a bifurcated system where quality care is a private privilege. It concludes by advocating for a national care policy based on the '4R' framework (recognition, reduction, redistribution, and revaluation) to socialise care and dismantle intersectional inequalities.

The document examines the tensions between the industrial growth strategy of South Africa's beef sector and the goals of a just transition. It highlights a 'dualistic' industry where commercial production is highly concentrated and intensive, while smallholder farmers face significant barriers to market entry. The report argues that current efforts to integrate smallholders into commercial value chains may benefit only a small elite and fail to address broader agrarian inequalities. Ecologically, it notes that beef cattle are the largest source of agricultural GHG emissions in South Africa, primarily through enteric fermentation. While the industry promotes 'sustainable intensification' and regenerative grazing, the report cautions that these may not offset total emissions growth and may not address the socio-economic distribution of emissions. It concludes that a just transition requires setting ambitious emission limits, redistributing productive resources like land, and reconfiguring labour markets to improve conditions for farm workers.