Search Climate Insights Directory

The IEJ argues that Budget 2024 continues a trend of austerity, with R270 billion in budget cuts between 2019/20 and 2026/27 threatening public services and socio-economic rights. The submission highlights declining spending on healthcare and education, inadequate social grant increases relative to inflation, and a flawed reliance on private sector investment to address unemployment and climate change. The IEJ recommends reversing budget cuts, increasing public investment in infrastructure, and raising revenue by taxing high-income earners and restoring corporate income tax rates.

The IEJ Strategy 2023–2027 focuses on producing knowledge and shifting economic discourse to achieve systemic social and economic change. The plan identifies six programmatic projects targeting macroeconomic frameworks, feminist economics, and a just transition in energy and food systems. To support these goals, the IEJ is transitioning from siloed programme areas to a project-based organisational structure and implementing a comprehensive monitoring, evaluation, and learning framework. Financially, the organisation has seen significant growth, with budgeted expenditure rising from approximately R3.2 million in 2018/19 to R34.9 million in 2023, though it continues to seek more long-term core funding.

The IEJ criticizes the 2024 Budget for prioritizing debt stabilization over public services and economic growth. It highlights significant real-term cuts in non-interest expenditure, the erosion of social grant values, and underfunding of public employment and healthcare. The report proposes increasing taxes on high-income earners and corporations, expanding social grants to the food poverty line, and increasing public investment to 25% to drive infrastructure and job creation.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) asserts that South Africa has failed to mobilise its maximum available resources, leading to unnecessary cuts in social service spending. The brief proposes a shift toward proactive resource mobilisation, specifically through taxing wealth and financial transactions, restoring Corporate Income Tax rates, and reducing tax exemptions for the wealthy. It further suggests renegotiating debt terms and leveraging reserves to create a more equitable economic framework and fulfill constitutional and international socioeconomic obligations.

The 2024 National Budget continues a decade-long trend of budget cuts to achieve a primary budget surplus and stabilise debt, despite high levels of poverty and unemployment in South Africa. The IEJ argues that the National Treasury's claim of insufficient funds is contradicted by the drawdown of R150 billion from the Gold and Foreign Exchange Contingency Reserve Account (GFECRA). The document highlights real-term declines in per capita non-interest expenditure, social grant values, and spending on healthcare and education. It proposes alternative revenue sources, such as wealth taxes and taxing financial transactions, to fund essential services and job creation. The IEJ criticises the reliance on Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) for infrastructure and electricity, warning of fiscal risks and potential tariff increases.

The Universal Basic Income Coalition (UBIC) criticizes draft amendments to South Africa's Covid-19 Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant regulations. While the amendments extend the grant until 2025, UBIC argues they introduce punitive clauses, such as the power to recover funds from beneficiaries and the cancellation of unpaid applications after 90 days. The coalition highlights that the R350 grant value is now below half of the food poverty line due to inflation and attributes high exclusion rates to National Treasury's budget constraints and poor administration by DSD and SASSA.

The Institute for Economic Justice and #PayTheGrants filed a court case on 21 July 2023 challenging the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant regulations. The challenge argues that barriers to access and the stagnant R350 monthly value violate the constitutional right to social assistance and constitute unconstitutional retrogression.

The IEJ criticizes President Ramaphosa's SONA for lacking concrete plans to address South Africa's economic crises, poverty, and unemployment. The organization urges MPs to question the President on the sustainability of the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant, the risks of private sector-led infrastructure and energy transitions, the 'starvation' of public services by the National Treasury, and the failure to hold state capture perpetrators accountable. The IEJ specifically calls for a transition to a Universal Basic Income Guarantee and the use of the Gold and Foreign Exchange Contingency Reserve Account (GFECRA) to fund developmental priorities.

The document argues that National Treasury's 'hyper-austerity' and unilateral budget cuts undermine constitutional rights and the effectiveness of social programmes. It highlights the decline in funding for the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant and the failure of child support grants to keep pace with food inflation. The authors call for a shift toward a developmental agenda that includes a basic income grant by 2025, wealth taxes to fund social services, and public investment in infrastructure and the energy transition.

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 document argues that current climate finance models, particularly the 'Billions to Trillions' (B2T) agenda, prioritise private profit and neoliberal de-risking over human rights and public goods. It proposes a Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA) to climate finance, organised into six clusters: national responsibilities, obligations to others, national sovereignty, financial flow responsibilities, crisis management, and procedural fairness. The toolkit specifically critiques South Africa's JET-IP for its heavy reliance on loans over grants and its focus on infrastructure over social justice elements like skills development. It provides 'How-to' guides for advocating for climate-responsive budgeting, technological transfer reform, parliamentary oversight of IFI loans, and the establishment of a progressive sovereign debt workout mechanism based on UNCTAD principles.

The Institute for Economic Justice (IEJ) has implemented a new Remuneration Policy based on values of justice, fairness, and equity. The policy introduces a structured approach to pay using the Paterson grading system and specific wage bands to balance market competitiveness with the goal of reducing pay inequality. Key features include a maximum wage ratio of 5:1 between the highest and lowest paid full-time staff, a total-cost-to-company package including retirement and medical aid contributions, and a commitment to public transparency regarding salary bands. The policy also includes a 'skills development fund' specifically designed to address historic racial and gender inequities by facilitating staff advancement.

The paper argues that current climate financing models, particularly the "Billions to Trillions" agenda, prioritise private sector interests over development goals and human rights. It proposes a fair climate finance regime based on a state-led approach that prioritises public investments and green infrastructure to avoid the risks associated with overreliance on private actors. The author calls for a research agenda to bridge the gap between international human rights norms and the actual implementation of climate finance investment plans.

The paper argues that the dominant 'Billions to Trillions' agenda, which prioritises private sector mobilisation and de-risking, often conflicts with international human rights standards. It evaluates this architecture through five principle clusters: national responsibilities, national sovereignty, procedural fairness, responsibilities of financial investment, and obligations during crises. The author contends that this model commodifies public goods, undermines state policy autonomy through investment treaties, and lacks transparency. Using South Africa's Just Energy Transition Investment Plan (JET-IP) as a case study, the report highlights gaps in public transport funding and the risks of private-sector dominance. It concludes by proposing a research agenda to bridge the gap between human rights norms and the actual implementation of climate investment plans.

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 IEJ criticizes the South African National Treasury's reliance on austerity and private-sector-led growth, arguing that the real burden of national debt is its cost rather than its size. The report proposes a shift toward a developmental budget that prioritizes public investment in infrastructure, green energy, and social services. To fund these priorities without increasing VAT, the IEJ suggests implementing a net wealth tax, reducing tax breaks for high earners, addressing illicit financial flows, and utilizing the Gold and Foreign Exchange Contingency Reserve Account (GFECRA). The document also calls for increasing the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant to the Food Poverty Line and restructuring Eskom's debt to facilitate a just energy transition.

The document advocates for a Guaranteed Universal Basic Income (UBIG) in South Africa, defining it as a government commitment to ensure all adults have a minimum income to meet basic needs. It highlights that while social grants have been effective since apartheid, significant gaps remain, particularly for able-bodied adults aged 18 to 59. The text argues that a UBIG, set at the highest food poverty line, could eliminate hunger for the 18.3 million people currently unable to afford basic food. Beyond poverty relief, the document claims a UBIG would improve health and education outcomes, stimulate local economic growth, reduce gender inequality by providing women with autonomy, and enhance social cohesion. It emphasizes that a UBIG is not a standalone solution but requires complementary interventions, including a supportive macroeconomic framework, expanded public services, a just energy transition strategy, and high-impact industrial policy.