First Thing, Daily Maverick's flagship newsletter

Join the 230 000 South Africans who read First Thing newsletter.

We'd like our readers to start paying for Daily Maverick

More specifically, we'd like those who can afford to pay to start paying. What it comes down to is whether or not you value Daily Maverick. Think of us in terms of your daily cappuccino from your favourite coffee shop. It costs around R35. That’s R1,050 per month on frothy milk. Don’t get us wrong, we’re almost exclusively fuelled by coffee. BUT maybe R200 of that R1,050 could go to the journalism that’s fighting for the country?

We don’t dictate how much we’d like our readers to contribute. After all, how much you value our work is subjective (and frankly, every amount helps). At R200, you get it back in Uber Eats and ride vouchers every month, but that’s just a suggestion. A little less than a week’s worth of cappuccinos.

We can't survive on hope and our own determination. Our country is going to be considerably worse off if we don’t have a strong, sustainable news media. If you’re rejigging your budgets, and it comes to choosing between frothy milk and Daily Maverick, we hope you might reconsider that cappuccino.

We need your help. And we’re not ashamed to ask for it.

Our mission is to Defend Truth. Join Maverick Insider.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

A BIG may not solve inequality problem alone, but it do...

Maverick Citizen

BASIC INCOME GRANT

A BIG alone may not solve SA’s inequality problem, but it does improve individual agency

The Helen Suzman Foundation hosted a roundtable discussion unpacking ongoing debates around the basic income grant on Thursday, 9 June 2022. . (Photo: Adobestock)

A basic income grant is not only a matter of welfarism, but also a developmental project. Administered progressively, it can improve the agency of individuals and allow them to participate meaningfully in society. Without it, many are forced to exist in survival mode.

The debate around the institution of a basic income grant (BIG) in South Africa is not new. In the past two years — since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic and the rollout of the R350 Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant – the idea of a BIG has gained traction in many circles, with experts in economics and civil society weighing in on its value.

At a roundtable discussion on the issue hosted by the Helen Suzman Foundation on Thursday, 9 June, Leigh Schaller of Fine Print News emphasised one devastating statistic: that a quarter of South Africans are living in extreme poverty. This means that they do not have enough money to meet their basic nutritional needs each month.

Behind this statistic are individual human beings suffering very real indignities and harms in the absence of viable social support. There are young women suffering through their menstrual cycles without sustenance; mothers who cannot feed their children; elderly citizens forced to take medication on empty stomachs.

All these scenarios were put forward by Basetsana Meletse, member of the #PaytheGrants campaign, during Thursday’s discussion. Addressing government, she asked, “What are you taking us for?”

“Can you please go revisit your policies and stop calling us the ‘poorest of the poor’, because we are voters. You are there because of our votes, yet you are treating us like trash.”

The Helen Suzman Foundation discussion comes just one day after it was revealed that the government has failed to pay a single R350 SRD Grant in April or May 2022. Civil society organisations including #PayTheGrants, Amandla.mobi, Black Sash, the Institute for Economic Justice and the Social Policy Initiative released a joint statement on Wednesday, 8 June, calling the situation “a scandal and a national disgrace”.

Basic income grant

There is an urgent need for a basic income grant to be introduced following the expiry of the R350 SRD Grant in March 2023, according to Kelle Howson of the Institute for Economic Justice. The new grant should be pegged to one of the official national poverty lines, which are objective measures of living standards and need in South Africa.

“It can be funded through various progressive taxation mechanisms that ensure that the wealthy make a net contribution, and that the poorest receive a net benefit,” said Howson. “These mechanisms or options for such mechanisms go beyond the simple trio of income tax, corporate tax and value-added tax to include a plethora of options.”

The objective of the grant would be to shift real opportunities for consumption from an affluent elite to those who have a level of consumption that is unacceptably low, according to Michael Sachs of the Southern Centre for Inequality Studies.

“Taxes are not the only way of extracting real resources from one part of the population and transferring it to another… but taxes are certainly the most transparent, the most democratic, the most efficient way of doing this, [when] subjected to some kind of level of democratic accountability,” he said.

Howson advocated for a universal BIG that would be administered to all South Africans, rather than those below a certain income level. Grants that target a certain income level are “near impossible” to administer correctly, she said, referencing the recent scandal around the unpaid R350 SRD grants as an example of where a targeting framework failed.

“That comes down to the targeting framework that has been put in place as a result of the arbitrary budget threshold that has been allocated for the grant,” explained Howson. 

“[The Department of Social Development] and [South African Social Security Agency] have been forced to introduce a means-testing system that has proved completely beyond the government’s capability to actually implement.”

However, Sachs argued that a universal system would be politically and fiscally ill-suited to a society where the poverty of the majority and the affluence of the minority are so extreme. Extending the grant to the affluent would result in more spending on the part of government, but no additional impact on poverty or hunger.

South Africa is not developing or growing, said Sachs, because it is a divided society. This division exists in the distribution of space, land, wealth and social services. The problem of inequality is one that needs to be addressed before the country can attain sustainable growth.

A BIG could be helpful in attaining equality within South Africa if the country had a clear path of transformation and development, continued Sachs. In the absence of such an overarching vision, however, he was sceptical as to whether the BIG alone would solve the problem.

Development and dependency

The BIG is not only a matter of welfarism, but also a developmental project, according to Howson. Used as a progressive policy platform, it can present real possibilities for helping the country achieve better outcomes, such as a more inclusive economy and more resilient communities.

“It’s absolutely not a silver bullet. But it can be part of a pioneering new deal and a new [possibility] for South Africa’s future,” said Howson.

Alex van den Heever of the Wits School of Governance, referenced a common argument against the grant: that giving people “something for nothing” will make them less inclined to work, creating an issue of dependency. 

“We have large parts of our society, certainly at the sort of the top 1% of income earners, who don’t actually earn their income from work, they earn their income from assets,” said Van den Heever. “If that argument applied, it would apply to them as well as to everybody else.”

There is no evidence, however, that a BIG creates increased dependency for people at lower-income levels, he said.

“What you’re largely doing [by providing a BIG] is — if you’re doing it progressively — improving somebody’s agency to participate effectively within society,” explained Van Den Heever. “But remove them, place them under incredible stress, and they will not be able to exercise appropriate agency — they will just be in a survivalist mode.” DM/MC

 

Gallery

Comments - share your knowledge and experience

Please note you must be a Maverick Insider to comment. Sign up here or sign in if you are already an Insider.

Everybody has an opinion but not everyone has the knowledge and the experience to contribute meaningfully to a discussion. That’s what we want from our members. Help us learn with your expertise and insights on articles that we publish. We encourage different, respectful viewpoints to further our understanding of the world. View our comments policy here.

All Comments 2

  • The road to economic penury is paved with the good intentions of social experts who, in believing that the spending of other people’s money is the solution, make a macro allocation from productive resources to unproductive consumption.

    That is why they appeal to emotional issues like starving children, elders swallowing medicines on empty stomachs et al. And they chant “don’t tax you and don’t tax me, tax that fellow behind the tree” – i.e. the greedy, sinful 1 per centers. But the solution is not yet more tax – the solution sits at the door of government. If we keep the current level of taxation and cut the ridiculous expenditure levels and corruption in government, we could easily afford a BIG.

    And yet the bleating for more taxation continues unabated with nary a tip of the hat to the discussion on government’s responsibility, ineptitude and corruption. These taxes will never find the poor – they will be intercepted and redirected.

  • Many do not agree with the statement that we can afford it, and believe this will worsen the life of the poor.
    The Centre for Development Enterprise has another view (again ignored by DM).

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted