Content uploaded by Tim Hart
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tim Hart on Feb 14, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Social Security Review2021
Evolution of Social Security in South Africa:
An Agenda for Action
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Department of Social Development extends its
appreciation to the HSRC for providing editorial services for this
inaugural edition of the Social Security Review. Special thanks
go to Shirin Motala, Stewart Ngandu and Tim Hart for their
excellent guidance and support to the Department to ensure
a high standard for the publication, including the peer review
of all the chapters. The Department is immensely grateful to
the Authors who willingly responded to the requests from the
HSRC for editing and approving of drafts. This is more so as
many of these requests came at short notice.
We wish to acknowledge the contribution of the team of
Peer Reviewers, 23 of them who will remain unnamed as the
approach was a double blinded peer review process. They
provided their intellectual insights and gave direction to the
authors in order to enhance the quality of the contributions.
We appreciate other colleagues at the HSRC, whose various
contributions in the execution of the project enabled the
achievement of milestones under tremendous pressure. These
include Ms Denise Booysen, Mr Gray van der Berg, Ms Laetitia
Louw , Ms Shingirira Muzondo and Mr Phumlani Ndlovu.
A special thanks to Blackmoon and in particular Milly Maphanga
who exercised immense patience and flexibility in ensuring
that we got the publication to this stage.
Copyright 2021
Department of Social Development
This publication is an output of the Development of Social
Development with support from the Economic Development
Programme, Human Sciences Research Council.
EDITORS: Shirin Motala; Stewart Ngandu & Tim Hart
Credits
Cover Illustration and design 2021 by Ilse Visagie, HSRC Book
layout and production by Blackmoon Design and Advertising
Copy editing by John Seagar.
Copyright Statement
The text and data in this publication may be reproduced as long
as the source is cited. Reproductions for commercial purposes
are forbidden.
Rights and Permission - All rights reserved
Publisher: www.blackmoon.co.za
Ordering Information: copies can be obtained for free from the
HSRC and the DSD
Edition and Year: First Edition 2021
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed in the various chapters are
those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official
policy or position of the Department of Social Development
and the Human Science Research Council. The conclusions
and assumptions made in the analysis are not reflective of
the position of any entity other than the authors. Any errors
or defects remain the responsibility of the editorial team and
authors.
.
Suggested Citation:
Department of Social Development (2021) Social Security
Review 2021: Evolution of Social Security in South Africa – An
Agenda for Action, Department of Social Development, Pretoria
ISBN: 978-0-621-44817-7
Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Glossary of terms 2
Minister’s Foreword 3
1 Introduction 4-8
Shirin Motala, Stewart Ngandu and Tim Hart, Editors
2 Social Security in South Africa: A Historical Perspective 9-18
Selwyn Jehoma and Abigail Ornellas
3 Selected Constitutional and Legal Perspectives on Social Security in South Africa 19-32
Marius Olivier
4 South African Social Security Policy and the Human Rights Based Approach: A Review 33-41
Isobel Sarah Frye
5 Universalisation vs Targeting: Policy Considerations 42-50
Michael Samson
6 The Right to Social Security and its Implementation:
What Role can the ILO Social Security Standards Play? 51-60
Krzysztof Hagemejer
7 “A Social Protection Floor: A South African Approach for Social Justice” 61-70
Viviene Taylor
8 Economic Growth and Social Security: Competing or Mutually Supportive 71-80
Alex van der Heever
9 Digitization of Social Grant Payments and Financial Inclusion of Grant Recipients in South Africa:
Evidence from FINSCOPE Surveys 81-90
Kingstone Mutsonziwa; Jabulani Khumalo, Obert Maposa, Bobby Berkowitz, Ashenafi B. Fanta
10 SAMOD, A Tax and Benefit Microsimulation Model 91-97
Gemma Wright and Michell Mpike
11 Ten Years of the South African Social Security Agency: The Journey 2006-2016 98-115
Stewart Ngandu and Shirin Motala
SOCIAL SECURITY REVIEW
212345
None of these terms are fully ‘objective’: how they are used depends on the context, agency, etc.
Social protection Social protection is the set of public actions that address both the absolute
deprivation and vulnerabilities of the poor, and the needs of the currently non-poor
for security in the face of shocks and lifecycle events. It encompasses a broad range
of policy instruments
Social protection floors A nationally defined set of basic social security guarantees which secure protection
aimed at preventing or alleviating poverty, vulnerability and social exclusion for all
– especially those at risk (children, the ill, elderly, disabled & those unemployed).
Embedded in ILO Recommendation 202
Social security • Broadly synonymous with social protection
Social safety net • Broadly synonymous with social assistance – used by World Bank primarily to
refer to those programmes that ‘goal of protecting families from the impact of
economic shocks, natural disasters, and other crises’
Contributory social protection Involve participants making regular payments to a scheme that will cover costs
related to life-course events, for example, maternity, unemployment, old age or
illness. Sometimes costs are matched or subsidised by the scheme provider.
However… social insurance is strongly linked to the formal labour market, meaning
coverage is often limited to formal workers.
Broadly synonymous with social insurance
Non-contributory social protection SP financed through tax revenues or through external aid in many low income
countries. Includes social assistance and social care services.
Social assistance A form of non-contributory social protection, most commonly targeted at low
income groups or vulnerable population categories, providing social transfers (cash
transfers, in kind or vouchers), cash/food for work (public works) or fee waivers for
health or education.
• Broadly synonymous with social safety net
Social insurance • Broadly synonymous with contributory social protection
Social care services Sometimes classified entirely separately from social protection, social care helps
address the interaction between social and economic vulnerability, through services
such as home-based care and family support services
Labour market interventions Labour market interventions provide protection for poor people who are able to
work, and aim to ensure basic standards and rights. Interventions can be active or
passive:
• Active labour market policies aim to help the unemployed and the most
vulnerable find jobs, through interventions such as job centres, training, and
policies to promote small and medium sized enterprises.
• Passive interventions include maternity benefits, injury compensation, and
sickness benefits for those already in work, financed by the employer. Passive
interventions also include changes to legislation, for example establishing a
minimum wage or safe working conditions.
Subsidies Subsidies can keep prices low for basic goods and services consumed by the poor.
However, subsidies are often regressive, e.g. on fuel, favours the middle classes
who own cars an travel more
Informal social protection Traditional community-based forms of social protection distribute risk within a
community and fill some of the gaps left by formal interventions. We should always
be asking how state interventions support or corrode such spontaneous systems!
GLOSSARY: SOCIAL PROTECTION/SECURITY
3
SOCIAL SECURITY REVIEW
6 7 8 9 10 11
MINISTER’S
FOREWORD
It gives me great pleasure to present the inaugural Social
Security Review, a new publication under the auspices of the
Department of Social Development, which aims to generate
and influence national discourse amongst key stakeholders on
issues within the social security environment.
This publication could not have come at a better time as we
are confronted with a crisis like no other before. The novel
coronavirus known around the world as the global COVID-19
pandemic presents unprecedented socio-economic challenges
that has brought existing inequalities to the fore and risks
exacerbating them, not only in South Africa but also across
the globe. These are the times for which social protection
programmes were created- to protect the poor and vulnerable
to respond to crisis and shocks, including the global COVID-19
pandemic.
South Africa has embraced a rights-based approach to social
security, which is enshrined the Constitution (Constitution
of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996). The
constitutional right to social protection is given effect through
the implementation of a legal framework that guarantees
coverage of the population against the risks faced throughout
the life cycle through social assistance programmes, amongst
others.
Since 1994, government has made great strides in extending
social security coverage, and enhancing its performance through
legislative and institutional reform. This notwithstanding, the
sector continues to be characterised by misconceptions and
negative perceptions which diminish the important role that
social security plays in the country.
Through this publication, the Department hopes to create
greater awareness and appreciation of our social security
system, and facilitate public participation in the national policy
discourse. The theme of this inaugural Social Security Review
is
“Evolution of Social Security in South Africa: An Agenda
for Action”
. The publication covers a wide range of subjects,
such as the history of social security in South Africa, the legal
framework for social security practice in our country, the
establishment of SASSA as a primary intervention of the new
dispensation, and more current debates on the interaction
between the economy and the social security system.
The publication locates social security squarely on the
continuum of South Africa’s developmental agenda envisaged
in the National Development Plan and as an integral part of
the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development Goals (SDG
1). For example, it identifies social grants as one of the most
effective anti-poverty interventions in the world, which have
proved to have positive developmental outcomes for children,
older persons and persons with disability. Combined with
social insurance provisions such as unemployment insurance,
occupational injuries and diseases protection and road accident
cover, they reduce poverty and inequality while contributing
to social inclusion of individuals and households that would
otherwise not be able to participate in the economy.
Although this publication was commissioned by the Department
of Social Development, the chapters were authored by
different individuals with diverse backgrounds, including civil
society activists, academia, local and international social
security experts. By inviting a wide range of contributors, the
Department intends to encourage engagement and debate
by independent participants, so as to create space for diverse
views and opinions to be expressed. This will provide helpful
critique to government, and contribute to more responsive
policymaking for the benefit of all South Africans.
Since this is the inaugural publication of the Social Security
Review, I would like to invite our stakeholders to engage,
critique, comment and respond to the publication and ideas
contained herein. The input and feedback we receive from you
will give guidance to the Department as to the value and merit
of developing future publications.
We hope the topics covered in this first publication will stimulate
informed debate and lively exchange of constructive ideas on
social security matters so that it serves as a platform to engage
on the role of social security in addressing the key socio-
economic challenges facing our democracy. I also encourage
your input on topics to be covered in future publications of the
Social Security Review.
Ms Lindiwe Zulu, MP
MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
SOCIAL SECURITY REVIEW
412345
1. INTRODUCTION
Siyaya Phambili: Towards Inclusive
Social Security in South Africa
Editors: Shirin Motala, Stewart Ngandu and Tim
Hart
Globally, South Africa, which recently celebrated twenty-five
years of democracy, has been lauded for its extensive non-
contributory social security system, reflecting the state’s
commitment to adopting policy measures and programmes
working towards translating socio-economic rights which
are underpinned by the Bill of Rights, as enshrined in the
Constitution (RSA, 1996; World Bank, 2018)
The substantial expenditure on social security has served as
a critical redistributive mechanism aimed at enhancing the
lives of millions of poor South Africans. Importantly, it has
contributed to growing South Africa’s social wage offering,
which includes free primary health care, free schooling, and
free basic services such as water, access to housing and social
grants (ibid). These public policy instruments, which seek to
address deprivations and vulnerabilities of the poor arising
from shocks and lifecycle events and provide security to the
non-poor, are generally referred to as “social protection”.
It is thus opportune that this Social Security Review provides
the platform for reflection on the legal and policy architecture
that has shaped South Africa’s social security system, and to
understand the context underpinning its development, which has
enabled the realisation of the social economic rights enshrined
in the constitution. The Review, which was conceptualised by
the national Department of Social Development (DSD), aims
to disseminate reliable and accessible information about the
history and fundamentals of social security, including policy
issues, regulatory frameworks and topical issues within the
social security environment.
The Review seeks to address a significant gap in information
and understanding about social security in South Africa. It hopes
to address the misconceptions and negative perceptions that
society has with respect to social security, which expands beyond
social assistance to cover contributory social security schemes,
such as social insurance, which help to ensure that those in formal
employment and their dependents are insulated from adverse
events and life cycle changes. In doing so, it also serves to
enhance and bolster active and meaningful participation by South
Africans in the policy discourse on social security.
This first edition of the Social Security Review has been
designed as a resource for those involved in social security
policy, strategy, programming, implementation and research.
The Review brings together a collection of ten commissioned
papers drawing on a diverse and exceptional group of
contributors who are experts in their given fields.
Each chapter provides insight into a specific aspect of
social security and can be read independently, providing a
comprehensive overview of that subject matter. However,
there is synergy and continuity between the chapters. Chapters
2 to 4 provide a historical perspective to the development of
social security in South Africa and a succinct synopsis of the
constitutional, legal and policy imperatives that have driven the
development of the current system. The next three chapters
5 to 7 surface some of the key debates with respect to the
parameters of a comprehensive social security system and
begin to explore the need for South Africa to expand its Social
Protection floor. The final set of chapters 8 to 11 explore
issues arising from the implementation of one of the largest
components of the social security system, namely social
assistance.
Chapter 2,
Social Security in South Africa: A Historical
Perspective
, by Selwyn Jehoma and Abigail Ornellas, begins by
making the argument that, if one is to reflect on the social security
instruments in the country today, it is necessary to understand
the historical influences that shaped the contemporary system.
To inform the present and to inspect the persisting inequalities,
they examine the history of the social security system in South
Africa, highlighting its origins in the British colony, through the
decades of apartheid, to the attempted transformations of the
post-1994 period. The authors posit that the system was clearly
underpinned by colonial and apartheid segregationist motives,
creating a fragmented and non-egalitarian society. Jehoma and
Ornellas examine four periods in the development of social
security, starting with the period prior to 1920 and then look at
the legislative processes and changes between 1920 and 1945.
This is followed by an examination of the post-war period, the
rise to power of the National Party in 1948 and the subsequent
and gradually apartheid-influenced social security structure. Here
they note the apartheid influences, changes in welfare focus and
the increasing effect of resistance to apartheid until 1994, which
impacted in different ways on the prevailing system. Towards
the end of this period, some concessions were made but the
system was largely carried over intact into the post-1994 era,
which they describe as the ‘rebirth of social security’, following
the dismantling of apartheid legislation and structures mediating
social security policy and interventions. Generally, they maintain
that the social security system transitioned, becoming more
inclusive, and expanding its target groups following the 2002
Committee of Inquiry into a Comprehensive System of Social
Security (Taylor Committee) (DSD, 2002). Jehoma and Ornellas
conclude by noting the contradictions that arose from market-
driven approaches, notions of developmental social welfare and
how these mitigated the democratic social security reforms
envisaged by the Reconstruction and Development Programme.
1
5
SOCIAL SECURITY REVIEW
6 7 8 9 10 11
In its preamble, the Constitution of the Republic of South
Africa (RSA, 1996) affirmed the state’s commitment to “heal
the divisions of the past and establish a society based on
democratic values, social justice, and fundamental human
rights”. In chapter 3,
The Constitutional and Legal Status of
Social Security in South Africa, Marius Olivier
reflects on the
transformative nature of South Africa’s constitution, particularly
as it has and continues to impact on the development of social
security in South Africa. He posits that the debates with
respect to social security in South Africa have been significantly
enhanced through the entrenchment of social security rights
in the constitution. It has obligated the state to give effect
to these fundamental rights and, equally importantly, it has
compelled courts to enforce rights so that they are properly
realised. The chapter calls for recognition of these fundamental
rights as being major poverty addressing instruments. It draws
attention to the indivisible, interrelated and mutually supporting
rights in the Constitution; one such right being Section
33(1) which demands that the state’s conduct is “lawful,
reasonable and procedurally fair.” Furthermore, the constitution
sets out the basic values and principles governing public
administration, many of which are applicable to the delivery of
social assistance and other social security programmes. The
exclusionary nature of South Africa’s current social security
provisioning is reviewed, with concern noted that millions are
denied access to either social insurance or social assistance.
He concludes by forewarning the state that its failure to roll
out a comprehensive social security package could result in
exposure to constitutional challenge.
South Africa’s Constitution guarantees social security as a
universal human right, with the qualifier that the features and
coverage depend on its affordability by the State. In 2015,
South Africa ratified the United Nations International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UNCESCR).
Isobel
Frye
, in chapter 4,
Rights-based Approach to Social Security:
Theory vs Practice
, reviews the national social security policy
alongside the Human Rights Based Approach framework
(HRBA), using the standards of the UNCESCR as a backdrop.
She points out the imperative for the current review of the social
security system to move from a minimalist to a transformative
human rights-based approach. This, she suggests, will bring it
in line with the guidelines and principles of the UNCESCR and
other international standards. Internationally, this minimalist
approach she contends is contained in the ILO Convention 102.
She advances the argument that, in South Africa, the effect has
been the exclusion of working age population between 18 and
60 years of age, compounded by the rigid means test applied
to grant eligibility, which has in turn excluded many deserving
cases below and above these age-defined criteria. Frye argues
that there has been a lack of meaningful participation in the
process of revamping the social protection policy in South
Africa, from the design phase through to implementation and
monitoring and evaluation of interventions. Frye suggests that
it is possible that the realisation of diverse socioeconomic
rights can supplement one another, simply “through single
point registration of eligibility” to overcome the current
duplications. She further notes that the necessary international
and national guidance exists for a comprehensive redesign of
the social security system. While she welcomes the activation
of the long- delayed policy negotiating process at NEDLAC, she
expresses concern that this is too narrow a process to meet
the test of meaningful engagement. Frye recommends that a
series of public workshops and fora are convened to create
awareness and educate South Africans about their rights to
social security and the nature of these rights and expectations.
This strategy must then be bolstered by the well-versed
contributions of beneficiaries and their representatives before
policy finalisation.
Globally, there has been phenomenal expansion of social
protection policy adoption by both developing and developed
countries, informed largely by an understanding of social
protection’s contribution to inclusive development and
equitable growth. Impact studies and many independent
evaluations (OECD, 2009; Heinrich, Hoddinott and Samson,
2016; Handa, Deveraux and Webb, 2010) have identified the
socio-economic benefits of South Africa’s grants. In chapter
5,
Universalisation vs. Targeting: Policy Considerations,
Michael Samson
suggests that these attributable outcomes
result from the design features of the programmes that
manage the trade-off between targeting and universalism.
In acknowledging that no social protection programme is
perfectly targeted, or truly universal, Samson argues, that
the balancing act depends on policy considerations which
determine equity, efficiency and developmental impact. The
chapter provides a definition of targeting in the context of
social protection and thereafter elaborates on the design and
implementation factors that can contribute to the success
or failure of the social protection programme. Some of the
negative factors which have resulted in exclusion errors include
stigma associated with a programme, misconceptions as to
eligibility criteria and social tensions between beneficiaries
and in beneficiary communities. Universalism on the other
hand, he argues, has lower political and social costs, generates
fewer incentive costs and is shown to minimize the risk of
dependency. For Samson, South Africa’s child support grant
presents the perfect case in the manner in which it transitioned
from a poverty-targeted approach to a universal categorical
approach. He concludes with the sobering recognition that
compromises are necessary when resources are constrained
and that even in those situations, pursuing a combination of
geographical and categorical targeting will contribute more
effectively to inclusive development and economic growth.
In chapter 6,
The Role of ILO Social Security Standards and
Recommendation No. 202 on National Floors of Social
Protection, Krzysztof Hagemejer
places the right of all people,
not only the employed, to social security in an international
perspective, stemming from the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 10
December 1948. Nevertheless, over 70 years later, much of the
global population still lives in uncertainty and has no access to
robust social protection. During this century, deeper analysis of
successful social security programmes (i.e. those that extended
coverage and introduced new policies to cover those previously
unprotected) in the Global South led to changing perceptions
about the significance and role of social protection in
SOCIAL SECURITY REVIEW
612345
development and the further refinement of policy mechanisms
to address gaps and increase coverage. Importantly, in 2012,
ILO member states adopted the new international standard -
Social Protection Floor Recommendation No. 202. According to
Hagemejer, Recommendation 202 should complement existing
social security standards and provide a robust set of priorities
and guidelines. These guidelines and priorities ought to result
in reduced coverage gaps, help secure a minimum income and
basic access to essential health care for those most desperately
in need thereof. Hagemejer concludes that Recommendation
202 is important and can be used in a flexible way by experts,
policy makers, implementers and civil society as a tool to design
and implement policies that ensure the right to social security
is realized. He further suggests that it can serve as an aid to
achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in a manner
envisioned as most appropriate by the society of any country.
Given the huge disparities and the triple challenge of deepening
poverty, increasing levels of inequalities and unemployment
that confront South Africa, Viviene Taylor, in chapter 7, Social
Protection Floor: A proposal for a South African Approach,
asserts that a South African approach to a social protection
floor ought to be premised on social justice, social solidarity
and cross subsidiarity to achieve a decent standard of life
and the progressive realisation of constitutional rights. She
propounds that South Africa’s historical, social and economic
context of mass exploitation and structural inequalities,
taken together with the contemporary features of neo-liberal
globalisation, are critical factors that underpin a compelling
argument for a developmental and rights-based approach for a
social protection floor. Taylor, who chaired the 2002 Committee
of Inquiry into a Comprehensive System of Social Security,
draws on the Committee’s Report (DSD, 2002) and the National
Development Plan Vision 2030 (National Planning Commission,
2011) in providing clear theoretical arguments that reinforce a
human rights and constitutional approach to social protection for
South Africa. Noting that social protection has gained traction
globally, the chapter outlines the components that constitute
a social protection package or floor and therefore a decent
standard of life. These, Taylor suggests, include interventions
which address the multi-dimensional nature of poverty, namely
income poverty (grants), capability poverty (such as access to
health care, education and basic services), asset poverty (land,
infrastructure) and programmes to mitigate life cycle risks
(social insurance) as well as special needs. Taylor recognises
that linking the social floor components to a decent standard
of life and reductions in the cost of living is a complex process,
which involves a wide range of actors. She urges policy makers
to respond to two critical questions, namely, how do we arrive
at a defined social minimum or social floor that prescribes an
adequate standard of life? and how do we reduce the cost of
living so that a decent standard of life is attainable, even in the
poorest of households?
Several years after democracy, only marginal gains have been
made, with respect to reducing inequality, whilst poverty
levels remain unacceptably high. Could this be as a result
of counterproductive policies, that are caused by a poor
understanding of the nature of the problem or could it be that
the enormity of the challenges themselves, overwhelms the
current battery of policies, thereby implying that only modest
gains can be achieved in the medium to long term? These are
the questions that
Alex van den Heever
explores in chapter
8,
Economic Growth and Social Security: Competing or
Mutually Support
, by focusing on South Africa’s current
conceptualisations of poverty, inequality and unemployment
in the mainstream policy discourse. The chapter proceeds
with a critique of the measures for addressing poverty
and inequality as articulated in the National Development
Plan. The importance of employment as a panacea for
these problems and the small role that is assigned to
social protection is argued to be tenuous, together with
the diagnosis of the constraints on employment which are
seen as arising from weak growth and supply-side failures.
Van den Heever argues that the role of household demand
as it relates to the distribution of income is missing from
this understanding. This he suggests creates a policy bias
towards interventions aimed at shifting the structure of the
economy whilst expenditure on social protection becomes
the next best alternative forgone. Citing recent studies that
debunk mainstream economic considerations of the impact
of labour market imperfections on unemployment, van den
Heever, argues that there is evidence to show that inequality
negatively affects economic growth and that well-designed
redistributive schemes do not. This is more so in a context
like South Africa, where there is high pre-tax inequality,
underestimation of the changes in well-being and the absence
of pro-poor growth. The chapter then assesses the adequacy
of existing policies and the significance of the social wage
in terms of its redistributive effects, through education and
health. Here the bone of contention relates to the proportion
of the direct transfer that accrues to the workforce providing
the services, in the form of compensation to employees who
accounted for over 65% of total expenditure between 2002/3
and 2015/16. Together with the lack of a comprehensive social
protection system and a fragmented institutional capacity to
formulate appropriate policies and to deliver at the required
scale, if unaddressed these factors will transfer social risks to
the poor and compromise the ability to address the structural
causes of inequality. The chapter concludes by offering four
broad social security reforms for South Africa.
By the early 2000s, the correlation between financial exclusion
and poverty had been established and goals for greater
inclusion were defined with the aim of removing the constraints
that prevented the poor from full participation in the financial
sector (United Nations, 2006).
Mutsonziwa et al
of the
FinMark Trust assess the impact of the SASSA MasterCard on
the level of financial inclusion of grant beneficiaries in chapter
9,
Digitisation of Social Grant Payments and Financial
Inclusion of Grant Recipients in South Africa – Evidence
from FinScope Surveys
. Using a financial product usage
typology, the bankable population is classified into those who
are financially excluded/included, the products or services they
use and the degree to which they are formally/informally served.
The chapter shows that relative to other South Africans, grant
recipients witnessed a significant increase in financial access
from 34 percent in 2004 to 100 percent by 2016; relative to
1
7
SOCIAL SECURITY REVIEW
6 7 8 9 10 11
77 percent of the South African adult population. This increase
was largely influenced by the introduction of the SASSA
MasterCard in 2012, where 76 percent of grant recipients were
banked. The bank account usage of grant holders revealed
that cash withdrawals were the main transactions used, with
46 percent reporting in 2016 that they took all the money
out as soon as it was deposited. The chapter also highlights
the changes in the savings trends of grant recipients which
show variability over the 12-year period: 18 percent in 2016
decreasing from 23 percent in 2012. The trend in borrowing,
however, showed a dramatic change after 2012 having been
fairly stable since 2004, by more than doubling to 41 percent
by 2016, from 20 percent in 2012. This increase was driven
by changes in formal credit which rose from 14 percent in
2012 to 36 percent by 2016. The overall conclusion from this
chapter is that while social grant recipients in South Africa
already enjoyed relatively high levels of financial inclusion,
the introduction of the SASSA MasterCard has seen greater
financial inclusion relative to the general adult population. The
evidence presented, however, notes a potential risk arising
from grant recipients being targeted by those marketing credit
which might have implications for the level of indebtedness of
this demographic sub-group.
In chapter 10,
SAMOD, a Tax and Benefit Microsimulation
Model, Gemma Wright and Michell Mpike
discuss the use of
a South African tax-benefit-Microsimulation Model (SAMOD),
that allows for policy analysis around the impact of the current
tax and benefit regime on poverty and inequality, examples
of how the tool has been used and the construction of the
model in other countries within the region. SAMOD enables
one to explore numerous issues of relevance to social security
analysis; for example, the incidence of existing policies across
the income/consumption distribution, their (direct) impact
on poverty indicators, their budgetary cost, and the analysis
of gainers and losers between actual or hypothetical policy
reforms. The benefit policies, or ‘grants’, that are simulated in
SAMOD are the Child Support Grant (CSG), Foster Child Grant
(FCG), Care Dependency Grant (CDG), Disability Grant (DG)
and Old Age Grant (OAG). These are briefly summarised in the
chapter in relation to how they are simulated within SAMOD.
The chapter then discusses how SAMOD has been used over
the past 10 years and these include its internal use by DSD and
SASSA to examine the impact of hypothetical policy changes
and to inform responses to parliamentary questions. Within
academia, a number of hypothetical changes to the social
security system have been simulated using SAMOD. These
include an income maintenance grant for working age adults; a
caregiver’s grant; several different scenarios for the provision of
social assistance for young people aged 18-24; variants of the
Child Support Grant; and a series of options for implementing
a universal Old Age Grant and a universal child benefit. SAMOD
has also been used to explore the impact of the whole tax and
benefit system on child poverty in South Africa.
In chapter 11,
Ten Years of the South African Social Security
Agency: The Journey 2006-2016, Stewart Ngandu
and
Shirin
Motala
assess the performance of the South African Social
Security Agency (SASSA) over its first 10 years. The chapter
provides a historical account that frames the context under
which the agency was established as well as an overview of
the legislation adopted in order to establish the agency. Whilst
the Review focuses on the first 10 years of SASSA, a timeline
of key events preceding the formal establishment of the
agency allows for a greater appreciation and assessment of
the state of the grant administration regime prior to 2006, and
the key legislative changes around social security. Ngandu and
Motala, argue that this context not only formed the basis for
the creation of the agency, which is solely responsible for the
country’s non-contributory social assistance, but it also played
an important role in the continued entrenchment of social
protection rights in South African law. The chapter highlights
SASSA’s achievements across a number of dimensions with
respect to the quality of service delivery, the reach of social
assistance, the drawing up of comprehensive guidelines, and
the standardisation of business processes and procedures
across provinces. More importantly, it is noted that whilst
the governance challenges that SASSA inherited from the
old system have been addressed through various initiatives,
some challenges have persisted and in recent years have led
to serious concerns with respect to the integrity of SASSA’s
management and oversight structures. The authors note that
these events reduced public confidence in both SASSA and
the Department of Social Development. The chapter concludes
with several recommendations, which the authors believe
must inform the priorities of SASSA in the future if SASSA is
to continue to make progress towards the greater fulfilment of
its mandate.
The contributors to this edition provide a detailed reflection
of South Africa’s historical and contemporary social security
platforms and instruments; during apartheid and post-1994.
While South Africa’s critical redistributive mechanism of social
security has come a long way since 1994, the authors note
that some continuities with the past remain and some new
challenges have arisen. Despite this, the authors put forward
recommendations on how to strengthen South Africa’s social
protection provisioning. While much of the groundwork has
been laid, there is need for a deeper democracy that ensures
greater citizen participation in social security policy and practice
to ensure that all South Africans can live a life of value and
dignity.
It is hoped that this inaugural edition of
Social Security
Review
will stimulate robust debates and an assessment of
the appetite for further editions of such a publication.
References
1. Department of Social Development, (2002). Transforming
the present – protecting the future: report of the Committee
of Inquiry into a Comprehensive System of Social Security,
Pretoria. Government of the Republic of South Africa
2. Handa, S., Deveraux, S. and Webb, D. (2010). Social
Protection for Africa’s Children. Routledge Publishers.
SOCIAL SECURITY REVIEW
812345
3. Heinrich, C., Hoddinott, J. and Samson, M (2016). Reducing
Adolescent Risky Behaviour in a High Risk Context: The Effects
of Unconditional Cash Transfers in South Africa. Economic
Development and Cultural Change.
4. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
(2009) Promoting Pro-Poor Growth Employment, OECD
5. Republic of South Africa (1996) Constitution of the Republic
of South Africa 108 of 1996 Pretoria, South Africa
6. Republic of South Africa (2011) National Development Plan
2030: Our future – make it work. National Planning Commission,
The Presidency, Pretoria, Republic of South Africa
7. United Nations (2006), Building Inclusive Financial Sectors
for Development, New York: United Nations, New York
8. United Nations (1966) ( United Nations International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, United
Nations, New York
9. World Bank (2018) Overcoming Poverty and Inequality in
South Africa: An Assessment of the Drivers, Constraints and
Opportunities. World Bank
Author Profiles
Ms Shirin Motala is a Chief Research Manager in the Inclusive Economic Development Division at the Human Sciences
Research Council (HSRC), working within the research theme of Employment Creation and Inclusive Development with
over 35 years’ experience in the social development sector. She holds an MA in Social Science from the University of
KwaZulu-Natal. Her research interests focus on poverty, social protection, active labour market interventions, employment
and public employment programmes. In her role as Project Manager and/or Investigator she has been responsible for
research conceptualisation, research design and management theory of change construction, fieldwork coordination, data
analysis, report writing and dissemination. Her research portfolio over the past 15 years has included serving as PI or co-
investigator and/or Project Manager on various studies commissioned by national and provincial governments, international
development agencies, non-profit organisations and donors. She has authored a range of research outputs including peer
reviewed journal articles, book chapters, policy briefs and client reports as well as having made presentations at various
local and international conferences. She has also served as guest editor for a special edition of Agenda, Feminist Media
Journal. Email: smotala@hsrc.ac.za
Mr Stewart Ngandu, is a Senior Research Manager in the Inclusive Economic Development Division at the Human
Sciences Research Council. He holds a Master of Science degree in Economics from the University of Zimbabwe (UZ).
Most of his research falls in the field of development economics, with a special focus on poverty, unemployment,
public employment programmes, industrial development, inclusive development and the assessment of the efficacy of
developmental public policy. His other research interests include economy-wide modelling and policy analysis, microdata
analysis, multidimensional poverty analysis, and impact evaluation design and assessment. Stewart has extensive
experience in the conceptualisation, design, and planning/budgeting of public focused research projects and the delivery and
dissemination of high-quality policy-relevant research that achieves impact. He has produced a variety of research outputs
including client reports, peer reviewed journal articles, book chapters, policy briefs, and conference presentations. Email:
sngandu@hsrc.ac.za
Dr Tim Har t is a Senior Research Project Manager in the Developmental and Capable Ethical State at the Human
Sciences Research Council. He has 25 years research experience on development actor behaviour and how they make
sense of the different social, cultural, political and economic realities that they inhabit. He holds an MPhil (cum laude) from
the Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology, Stellenbosch University, where he is a doctoral candidate. Email:
thart@hsrc.ac.za
2
9
SOCIAL SECURITY REVIEW
6 7 8 9 10 11
Selwyn Jehoma and Abigail Ornellas
Introduction
South Africa, like all former British colonies, inherited social
security systems that catered almost exclusively for the colonial
expatriates. This chapter is a brief overview of the historical
precursors of South Africa’s social security system, locating it
within its colonial past, in order to inform our understanding of
the present. Whereas the historical choices of social security
systems in many countries are the outcome of social, political
and economic forces and structures, South Africa had the added
dimension of race, and in particular the Apartheid ideology. Up
until 1992, social policy choices were largely driven by racially
based political and economic ideologies, cemented within
Victorian capitalist colonialism and imperialism. It is important
to understand this history if we are to recognise South Africa’s
successes in social security developments since 1994 and be
aware of continuing gaps and influence of external forces and
ideologies on policy.
The chapter explores key periods within South Africa’s history
that influenced the development of the social security system
we know today. It is the authors’ belief that developing such
understanding will enable critical evaluation of the successes
and continuing challenges within the country’s social security
system. Key periods that the chapter reviews include:
(i) social security prior to 1919; (ii) legislative measures
and developments from 1919 to 1945; (iii) the Apartheid–
influenced social security system and changes influenced
by an emerging Apartheid resistance, from 1946 to 1994;
and, (iv) the re-birth of social security from 1994, with the
dismantling of Apartheid, and some reflections on the
present day. These four periods are identified by the authors
as precursors to shaping the country’s social security system
and are summarised in Table 1.
Against the backdrop of these historical periods, the influence
of colonialism in social security development is explored
through reflections on key decisions, policy developments
and transitions in South African society. For the purpose of
this chapter, the authors offer two definitions with regard to
‘colonialism’ and ‘social security’ within the South African
historical context, which will further inform understanding of
the underlying themes that are present throughout the chapter.
Following these definitions, the authors outline the literature
review methodology undertaken and highlight key texts and
their relevance. The remainder of the chapter then discusses
the historical and social evolution of social protection during the
four critical periods discussed above. The chapter concludes
with some reflections on current challenges and gaps within
the social security system, and provides suggestions for the
future within the context of influential ideologies and the
National Development Plan.
2. SOCIAL SECURITY
IN SOUTH AFRICA:
A HISTORICAL
OVERVIEW
Key Period Significant developments
Prior to 1919 Social security predominantly rendered through philanthropic charities and the Church; this marked the
beginnings of racially divided social security measures.
1919-1945 Introduction of more structured means of social security through the state; increase in provision and
formalisation; some extensions to certain groups of Black residents.
1946-1994 A period of regression in social security achievements of the previous period; increase in racially discriminatory
policies; followed by significant shifts in the 1970s with the beginnings of Apartheid resistance.
The early stages of dismantling apartheid-based social security provision, moving toward the introduction of
radical post-1994 shifts.
Post-1994 Noteworthy successes in the establishment of an extensive and equitable social security system under
the African National Congress (ANC); some necessary reflections about market-driven contradictions that
highlight possible reasons for existing social security gaps.
Table 1 Framework for review: Critical precursors to South Africa's Social Security development
Source: The authors
SOCIAL SECURITY REVIEW
10 12345
Denitions and methodology
Colonialism
In the context of this chapter, colonialism refers to the
establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition, and
expansion of a colony in one territory by a political power
from another territory. Thus, it engenders an unequal
relationship between the colonial power and the colony, and
often between the coloniser and the colonised. Within such a
framework, colonialism is characterised by (i) the political and
legal domination of indigenous cultures; (ii) power dynamics
that render indigenous societies both economically and
politically dependent; (iii) an exploitative relationship between
the imperial power and the colony; and (iv) racial and cultural
inequality. Against this backdrop, colonisation was largely
extended through capitalist means, which engendered the
concept of ‘Other’ in order to create and sustain cheap labour
and grotesque profit generation for select groups. Capitalist
ideology ‘helped to ingrain racially coded relations of coercion
and subordination in colonial culture’ (Bundy, 1992:27).
The impacts of colonisation have been immense and
pervasive, with both immediate and protracted effects. They
have included: the spread of unequal and inequitable social
relations; the creation of new institutions that facilitate further
exploitation; and improved infrastructure and technological
progress. Colonial mechanisms further encourage the spread
and adoption of colonisers’ languages, literature and socio-
cultural institutions, and systems of governance. Colonisation
also has a negative influence on the post-colonial regime,
particularly through its spread of western ideas on socio-political
stratification based on a racial hierarchy, where the ‘Western’
or European ideas and practices are still believed to be superior
to the ‘non-western’ or Black (i.e. African, Coloured and Indian)
ideas and that societies can be built on systems of exclusivity
and elitism. This inherited white supremacist ideology led to
post-colonial systems that perpetuated the belief that certain
racial groups could have authority over the other racial groups
in all spheres of life and enjoy better benefits than others;
that entitlement by an ‘elite’ minority was acceptable and that
the poor majority were undeserving. Furthermore, the post-
colonial commitment to capitalism, and later, neoliberalism,
has continued to encourage a widening gap between the rich
and the poor, an inequality that begets competition, and has
limited the effective development of post-colonial economic
freedom for many population groups.
Social Security
It is important here to distinguish what is meant by the term
‘social security’, as it is often used interchangeably with similar
terms such as ‘social protection’, ‘social welfare’ and ‘social
assistance’, and can have different interpretations. By way
of a general definition, social security can be understood as
representing ‘the provision of security through social or public
means, thus defining the agency responsible for provision’
(Kruger, 1992:4). In this case, Kruger (1992) understands
‘public means’ to indicate collective behaviour by several
actors, including the state and private sector, in the interest
of a particular group or community, thereby inferring the word
‘social’. This definition is considerably broad in scope. Within
more formal definitions, social security is often understood
as being related to contributory schemes concentrated within
the formal economic sector, acting as a third pillar within the
larger social protection system (alongside social assistance
and social welfare programmes).
For the purpose of this chapter, social security in the South
African context refers to both social insurance, ‘which aims to
cushion households against adverse events and usually includes
a contributory element such as in ‘pension or unemployment
insurance’, as well as social assistance schemes, ‘where
transfers in cash or in kind are made to deprived populations.
These include public works programmes and cash transfer
programmes (including non-contributory social pensions)’
(Woolard et al, 2011:358).
Literature Review Methodology
This chapter explores key texts by experts in the field of South
African social security, as well as building on the authors’
knowledge and experience in the formation of the South African
social security system and developments in rendering social
grants post-1994. A literature review was undertaken using key
words such as ‘social security’, ‘colonialism’, ‘social welfare
policy’ and ‘South Africa’ to identify relevant arguments and
understandings within academic literature. Key texts identified
by the authors and used to offer an overview of the historical
precursors of South African social security development, as
well as to substantiate arguments presented in this chapter
include: the substantial work by Olivier (2011) on the History of
South African Social Security System from the Pre-Apartheid
Era to the dawn of democracy during early 1990s: Monograph
Prepared for the Department of Social Development; Kruger’s
(1992) thesis on State provision of social security: Some
theoretical, comparative and historical perspectives with
reference to South Africa; the critical work of Smith (2014),
in her extrapolation of social work development through an
analysis of historical dialogue and competing narratives; and
Visser’s (2004) Shifting RDP into GEAR. These authors have
contributed substantially to knowledge of South African social
security development, particularly within the colonial era.
Social Security in South Africa before
1919
It can be assumed that family, communal structures and clan
formations were the earliest forms of economic security in
southern Africa before the arrival of the first Europeans in
1652 (Smith, 2014; Visser, 2004). According to Smith (2014),
although poverty and inequality existed prior the colonial era,
the effects were largely mitigated by existing mechanisms
of kinship and reciprocity. There is evidence that the first
formation of more structured social mechanisms of security
were initiated by the arrival of the Dutch East India Company
(DEIC), for assisting the identified poor and vulnerable. These
2
11
SOCIAL SECURITY REVIEW
6 7 8 9 10 11
measures were primarily provided by the church and were
mainly charitable and philanthropic. According to Olivier (2011)
the DEIC extended church collections so as to raise funds for
the upliftment of the poor, who were increasingly seen as the
responsibility of the church. From around 1664, this activity
led to cash assistance being offered by the church to enable
the poor to meet their basic needs. During this time, cash and
in-kind benefits through the church began to be disbursed as
regular monthly grants to the elderly, the disabled, widows and
poor infirm people, including former slaves who met these
criteria. Kruger (1992) suggests that up to this point, race was
not yet a criterion in the provision of such social assistance.
In fact, there were no formal criteria to qualify for assistance
from the church at the time, and cash or in-kind assistance was
granted based on personal knowledge of a family or individual’s
deprivation, or inspection by the deacons. However, assistance
was at times withheld on the basis of immoral or undesirable
behaviour (Marais, 1943).
Ignoring race as a precondition changed in 1705, at which
time Blacks began to receive church-rendered cash benefits
at a lower rate than other racial groups (Kruger, 1992); by 1710,
monthly grants allocated to ‘free Blacks’ were given at a rate of
less than half of that provided to White groups (Kruger,1992).
This coincided with the emerging global dialogue at the time,
which was dominated by paternalism, individualistic ideology
and a favouring of the ‘White elite’ in the attempt to construct
an inferior ‘Other’ to meet cheap labour demands (Patel, 1992;
Smith, 2014). As outlined by Bundy (1992:27), the demarcating
of race allowed for ‘racially coded relations of coercion and
subordination in colonial culture.’
Kruger (1992) proposed that the arrival and settlement of
the English in 1820 led to a paradigm shift in South Africa’s
philanthropic social welfare model, as they introduced a slew
of legislative reforms - underlined by capitalist and Victorian
notions of the ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor - that gave
precedence to personal and family support for all racial groups,
however, with a notable discrimination for non-whites. The
‘deserving’ poor group included orphans, ‘Voortrekkers’ older
than 70 years, and physically capable persons that participated
in public work opportunities (Olivier, 2011). This is significant
in understanding early transitions in the nature of social
security provision, which, while still dominated by philanthropic
ideals, indicated the growing expectation of self-reliance and
responsibility for well-being.
The visible increase in deprivation after the aforementioned
regime change has been attributed to the gaps in the Victorian
model of social security provision. In addition, the rapid
transformation of the South African economy, as a result of
diamond and gold mining in the late 1800s, served to further
intensify this deprivation, through increased urbanisation
during the transition from an agrarian to a mining society,
growing land scarcity, and the post-1834 gradual shift from
slavery to wage labour (Kruger, 1992). Racial divides intensified
during this period through the increased demand for cheap
labour (Bundy, 1979; Smith, 2014).
The status quo remained the same between the late 1800s
and the early 1900s when welfare provision was dominated
by charitable organisations and limited state intervention.
This resulted in the establishment of self-help and private
philanthropic organisations, the majority of which were run
by religious groups. Additional social welfare assistance was,
however, provided by the mining sector. For example, the
Present Help League (funded to a large extent by mine-owners)
provided assistance to skilled mine workers who had become
unemployed. However, this criterion excluded unskilled
workers, most of whom were Black. In addition, the De Beers
Consolidated Mines established what could be considered the
first private health arrangement in 1889 and, by 1910, there
were seven similar private medical schemes (Olivier, 2011).
With the formation of the Union of South Africa in 1910, some
shifts began to take place in the national regulation of welfare
within the South African colony. While voluntary organisations
continued to play a dominant role in welfare provision, the
responsibility for poverty relief was handed over to the
demarcated provinces and the state began to become more
involved in relief efforts, funding many voluntary organisations
(Kruger, 1992), as well as establishing some formalised means
of assistance. The Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1914, for
example, was the first legislation to regulate compensation
for occupational injuries and diseases, through a system of
mainly state administered insurance. Assistance beyond the
workplace also began to emerge, especially in the fields of
childcare and provision of support to poor families. Various
child protection initiatives were further introduced from 1905
to 1910, including the founding of voluntary child welfare
societies, the consolidation of the Children’s Protection Act
in 1913, and the provision of maintenance grants to destitute
white and Coloured children, orphanages and children’s homes
(Olivier, 2011). A rare example of a ‘categorical’ welfare benefit
in the context of South African welfare policy can be found
in the provision of a maternity allowance to pregnant women
from 1918, in terms of labour legislation.
Despite the development of the above-mentioned policies,
social security remained rigid and limited to ‘relief of
distress’ (Pollack, 1960: 3). In addition, racial discrimination
in the provision of assistance continued. In the case of the
Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1914, for example, Black
workers were regulated separately by the already existing
Naturellearbeid Regelingswet of 1911 (Olivier, 2011). Although
the 1918 Maternity Allowance was not necessarily racially
exclusive, it was selective in its exclusion of large categories of
female workers, such as farm and domestic workers, most of
whom would have been Black or Coloured.
The above-mentioned developments serve as an outline of
social security notions prior to 1919, and the persistence of
philanthropic and private charity-based social security means,
with racist undertones in the Capitalist formation of racial-
based inequality. Both social security provision, and racial
divides, gradually began to be entrenched and formalised as
transition from the Victorian social welfare model began to take
place between 1919 and 1945.
SOCIAL SECURITY REVIEW
12 12345
Social Security developments from
1919 to 1945
Although South Africa preserved the Victorian social welfare
model post-1919, significant shifts in the formalisation of
social security continued to take place. In one instance,
social security measures began to be more formalised
through state regulation. However, alongside this was the
evident ‘unwillingness of white parliaments to use general
government revenue in the financing of services to Africans’
(Kruger, 1992:159) and this began to be institutionalised into
legislative provisions.
The formalisation of welfare provision after 1919 can be said to be
partly a result of rising poverty after the First World War, as well
as the changing political climate of the 1920s. The War Veterans’
Grant was introduced in 1919, at the end of the war, exclusively
for returning soldiers. This benefit consisted of payments for
disabled as well as able bodied returning servicemen and could
be regarded as more of a reward for supporting the cause of the
Allies, than as a form of social security.
South Africa institutionalised its first occupational pension in
1920. This provision was followed by further developments,
such as the payment of maintenance grants to caregivers of
children, by way of the Child Protection Amendment Act of
1921. However, the occupational pension and maintenance
grant continued the theme of racial discrimination, and
were mainly available to whites, although the urban Black
child could access the maintenance grant under ‘exceptional
circumstances’, although an example of such circumstances is
difficult to locate.
In 1924, the political climate of the country began to change,
and the National Party, led by Hertzog, and the Labour Party
(which was socialist in orientation), formed a coalition and
won the election. In a turnaround policy from that of the liberal
Botha and Smuts government, the Pact government came to
power on the mandate of breaking the English stranglehold on
economic policy and committed to addressing the plight of poor
whites, who had been voicing their concerns through several
large protest actions, including the 1921 mineworkers strike and
the 1922 Rand Revolt. The establishment of the 1924 National
Council for Child Welfare and 1929 National Council for the Blind
and the Deaf demonstrated shifts towards the nationalisation of
social welfare. Soon after the change in government, the Pienaar
Commission on Old Age Pensions and National Insurance
produced three reports that, according to Olivier (2011), provided
the foundations for South Africa’s welfare regime. The most
significant of these was the 1928 introduction of means tested
social pensions for Whites (at R5 per month) and Coloureds (at
R3 per month); but nothing for other Black groups (Africans and
Indians).1 According to Pollak (1960:4), these changes indicated
a movement ‘from pauper relief to public assistance.’
Racial divides during these changing times were, however,
exacerbated. In the context of social pensions, for example, the
1 The pensions applied to men above the age of 65 years old and women above the age of 60 years old.
South African Parliament agreed that ‘natives’ (Black people),
Indians and all residents of Namibia (then the protectorate of
South-West Africa), should be excluded from this coverage.
This reflected the dominant view at the time that pensions
were unnecessary for this segment of the population given
the African tradition of maintaining the elderly and dependent
persons. According to Kruger (1992), the motivation behind the
further exclusion of Blacks from maintenance grants was along
similar lines, claiming a reluctance to disrupt existing traditional
forms of the care for children, women and the elderly. In
addition, the state was concerned that the delivery of social
assistance would attract further urbanisation of Blacks, which
was considered undesirable.
In 1934, however, the Worker’s Compensation Act was enacted
to provide workers with: (i) an insurance arrangement in the
event of injury; (ii) free medical aid on the premises of the
employer for workers injured at work; (iii) free transport to the
hospital if necessary; (iv) capped payment of medical expenses
for injuries and diseases occurring off the employer’s premises;
and (v) the appointment of a Compensation Commissioner to
administer the funds. The provisions were ground-breaking at
the time since this reflected one of the few pieces of legislation
where urban Black workers were included, notwithstanding
ongoing discriminatory practices of differential benefits. The
Native Affairs Department was responsible for administering
the claims on behalf of Black beneficiaries.
Formalised social security continued to grow during this period.
In 1929, the Pienaar Commission recommended the introduction
of a compulsory unemployment insurance scheme for certain
sectors and income groups. The legislation was delayed to 1937,
at which point Parliament passed the Unemployment Benefit
Act. The government also set up the Department of Labour and
Welfare in 1937 to plan and coordinate the delivery of welfare
services that sought to address the poor white problem, and
rehabilitate the socially unadjusted or poorly adjusted individual
or family (Olivier, 2011). This was largely based on the findings
of the 1932 Carnegie Commission, which identified significant
poverty escalation in South African communities (White and
Black) and the gaps in the current system of relief. One of the
most important recommendations of the Carnegie Report was
the need to give attention to preventative measures within
social security, over and above poor relief. The establishment of
the Department of Labour in 1937 was thus a deliberate step
to begin coordinating and formalising more sustainable social
security measures. This Department took over the provision
of poor relief in all provinces except Natal in 1940. It also
administered the Children’s Act of 1937 through which child
welfare was prioritised as a state responsibility, second only to
old age pensions, in the late 1930s.
From 1934 onwards, an increasing realisation of the need to
cover the risks associated with a modern economy led to both
political and economic considerations playing key roles in the
formulation of social security policies. This brought about some
extensions for Black groups, in order to maintain some form of
economic and political stability within a modernising economy.
2
13
SOCIAL SECURITY REVIEW
6 7 8 9 10 11
The Blind Persons Act of 1936 provided income support to
disabled and visually impaired White and Coloured persons. This
changed in 1944 when the Act made non-statutory payments
to Indians and Blacks respectively; in 1944, pensions for the
aged, infirm and blind were legislatively extended to Indians
and Africans, although benefit levels differed between the race
groups, to the detriment of Black people, who were subject to
more stringent means testing. There were also differentials with a
higher rate paid to Black South Africans in urban areas compared
with a lower rate in rural areas. In 1946, as a result of the Social
Security Committee’s more comprehensive social security
proposals, the Unemployment Insurance Act was passed which
sought to eliminate earlier restrictions, e.g. the exclusion of all
Black workers earning less than R165 per year and the exclusion
of agricultural, domestic and mineworkers. However, it continued
to exclude people working in a number of sectors of the economy.
According to Iliffe (1987), these initiatives to include all racial
groups in the provision of social security were primarily the work
of Jan Hofmeyr, Minister of Social Welfare in 1937. Hofmeyr
questioned the merits of restricting social welfare schemes to
White people only and insisted on extending the Labour and
Social Welfare Department’s functions under the Children’s Act
to a small numbers of Blacks in 1940. This was an important
step in the evolution of South Africa’s social security model
as it broke the tradition of services for Blacks being provided
exclusively through the Native Affairs Department. Kruger
(1992) further argues that by the late 1930s to early 1940s, the
arguments that the state had used for limiting social security
to Blacks were no longer viewed as valid within an increasingly
modernising society, and there were disputes within the 1944
Social Security Committee over the misconception of the living
standards within the Native Reserves and the ability of rural
native communities to offer support to the vulnerable.
The Second World War brought about increased poverty and
social disruption in South Africa. Voices within government and
civil society organisations advocated and gained popular support
for the provision of a comprehensive social security system
(Dubow & Jeeves, 2005). Employers’ complaints during the war
about the costs of private insurance for workmen’s compensation
led to a reform of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1941
and the subsequent establishment of a state fund to which all
employers would contribute. According to Giliomee, the ‘poor
white problem’, had de facto been eliminated by 1939 (Giliomee,
2003). This was achieved primarily through various laws (e.g. the
1925 Wage Act) that gave them preferential treatment in acquiring
better paid jobs and the creation of a ‘civilised labour policy’ for
Whites. This explains why few Whites claimed social pensions
despite the very generous means tests. In 1943, take-up rates
amongst the elderly for pensions were 40 per cent for Whites
and 56 per cent for Coloureds. By that year, only 4 per cent of all
social assistance spending was on Blacks and most of this was
targeted relief for the destitute and pensions for the blind. But in
1944 the Smuts government extended social old-age pensions to
Blacks, though benefit levels were less than one tenth of those for
Whites and the means test was far more stringent (Posel, 2005).
By 1958, Blacks already composed 60 percent of the 347 000
social old-age pensioners, although they only received 19 per cent
of old-age pension spending (van der Berg, 1997).
In the midst of post-World War Two demands, the National Party
set up a Committee of Inquiry that recommended the state to
provide a more comprehensive social security system to combat
growing poverty, albeit along racial lines. It seems that during
and after the war, coverage for Blacks was being extended
and the chief benefits recommended were old age pensions,
family allowances, disability pensions and unemployment
benefits. However, this was by no means an entirely positive
transition. Means tests continued to be differentiated by racial
and geographical means, and benefits for members of the Black
groups were significantly lower. The proportions recommended
by the Committee of Inquiry, for example, saw White people
enjoying a 65 per cent share of the available social security
benefits, Coloured and Asian people benefiting from 12 per cent,
and Black people 23 per cent (Olivier, 2011). The Unemployment
Insurance Act of 1947 further expanded social security coverage,
with the removal of the minimum income restriction. However,
it continued to exclude domestic, agricultural and mine workers,
thereby limiting much of the Black population from accessing
the insurance provision. The categories in the Children’s Act of
1937 were extended in 1942. Despite this, accessibility was
still blocked for many racial groups and by 1944, 13 276 White
children were receiving maintenance at a maximum of R5.00,
as opposed to only 5 816 Coloured children and 3 034 Indian
children at a maximum of R1.70, and only 190 Black children at a
maximum of R1.25 (Kruger, 1992).
Later, parliamentary criticism would cause the government
to abandon the comprehensive scheme proposed by the
Social Security committee (which was, at the time of its
formation, applicable to all urbanised people and farm workers,
regardless of race, although with continuing differentiated
benefit levels). During this time, Hofmeyr, by then Finance
Minister, managed to salvage the most important benefits for
Blacks by including them in his budget, albeit at what can be
considered a bare minimum. Yet, despite this perhaps notable
shift to the inclusion of Black South Africans in social security
schemes, such inclusion continued to be subject to stringent
means testing, was racist and differential in terms of quality
and quantity of provision. However, the political undercurrents
of social security developments were to see an even more
significant change (and initial decline) from 1946, one that
Kruger (1992:173) labelled ‘an attack on many of the schemes
instituted in the previous decades.’
Social Security developments from
1946 to 1994
Social security developments from 1946 through to 1994 saw
many dramatic changes, with a surge in apartheid policies, an
increasing mass resistance, and the eventual dismantling of
such racial divides with the democratic election of 1994.
The period from 1946 through to the late 1960s saw rapid
regression in the extension of social security mechanisms for
Blacks. In describing this period of social security development
in South Africa, Bromberger (1982) refers to it as an era of
retrenchment that led to significant regression of previous
strides made in both the nature of state-rendered social
SOCIAL SECURITY REVIEW
14 12345
security provision, as well as racially discriminatory practices in
the access to and benefit-levels of existing policies.
However, this regression was slow. In fact, from 1946 to 1948,
there seemed to be a continuing commitment to social security
extension. The recognition of the gaps in the social security
system, as discussed above, initially led the government to
make meaningful concessions, so as to comply with the Social
Security Committee’s recommendations. For example, the
Disability social grant was extended to all groups in 1946, in
terms of the Disability Grants Act, so that 27 264 Africans
received disability grants, 21 864 received invalidity grants
and 196 846 received old age pensions by 1948. Furthermore,
various measures to alleviate family poverty and working
poverty were implemented. These included the payment of
family allowances to low income White, Coloured and Indian
families, as well as the extension of the maintenance grants
coverage to include all population groups (Olivier 2011). In
August 1947, eight months after the 1946 Unemployment
Insurance Act came into force, a Commission of Enquiry was
appointed to address the issue of the inclusion of Africans and
immigrants.
However, with the election of the National Party of DF Malan
in 1949, the inclusion of Blacks in the newly established
Unemployment Insurance Scheme was reversed in what
was seen as an attempt to protect White workers (Olivier,
2011). Although the Unemployment Insurance Scheme was
extended to provide for illness benefits in 1952, maternity
benefits in 1954, and death or survivor’s benefits in 1957, it
was, by and large, inaccessible to Black population groups. In
fact, as a result of the changed beneficiary categories, Meth
& Piper (1984) concluded that the unemployment insurance
available to Blacks was negligible by 1950. In addition, other
social security measures that were initiated in the early 1940s,
such as school feeding schemes and cost of living allowances,
were virtually abolished. Black schools were excluded from
registering for school feeding schemes and by 1949 rural Black
children were excluded from the cost of living allowances
combined with significant downsizing of the grant for urban
Black children in the same year (Kruger, 1992). Furthermore,
increasing discriminatory limitations were set in motion with
social pensions, both in terms of means test categories
and benefit levels. By 1962, while Whites were receiving a
maximum monthly pension of R267.19, Blacks were allocated
R25.57 (Kruger, 1992).
In 1948, steps began to be taken to move dependent Blacks
to the homelands and in doing so, to transfer social security
provision for Blacks to these areas (Kruger 1992). In keeping
with these efforts, the 1950s saw the responsibility for
social welfare for Blacks and Coloureds entirely transferred
from the Department of Social Welfare to the Department
of Bantu Administration and the Department of Coloured
Affairs respectively. Benefits and associated means test
requirements were increasingly differentiated according to
race and geographical location during this time. Thus, despite
the recorded booming of the South African economy between
1949 and 1970 (Bromberger, 1982), the exclusion of Blacks
from many social welfare schemes continued, and even
intensified. The examples cited here offer an overview of these
retrogressive steps but are not necessarily an exhaustive list.
However, despite this regression, with the constricting of
the economy in the 1970s, and a rising global resistance to
Apartheid, a need for policy adjustments was recognised,
which led to what Bromberger (1982) calls ‘showing signs of
[a] thaw’. Bromberger notes that there was an ‘increased real
and per capita expenditure on social services and infrastructure
for Blacks; a reduction of racial differentials in social pension
benefits; and an increased awareness of poverty and the
need for corrective policies’ at this time (Bromberger, 1982,
cited in Kruger, 1992:179). This began in the mid-1960s, but
showed real signs of transition in the early 1970s. One of
the first responses to this changing mind-set (amidst global
and liberal pressures) was the abolishment of the exclusion
of Blacks from unemployment insurance in the late 1970s
(Olivier, 2011). Following this, transitions continued, with the
abandonment of racial differentiations in the value of payments.
The Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF) lower income limit
was abolished in 1979, thus making unemployment insurance
available to poorer (predominantly Black) workers. Finally, this
period saw the UIF further extended to include gold and coal
miners in 1981, and agricultural workers in 1993. It should be
noted here that South Africa has never developed a contributory
public pension system. The government did however seek to
regulate the many private pension funds that existed. The 1956
Pensions Fund Act was the primary mechanism for regulating
private contributory schemes in a manner that did not disrupt
the existing private funds (Olivier, 2011).
By 1980, 560 834 Africans were receiving old age pensions
and 158 305 were receiving disability grants (Olivier, 2011).
During this period pensions were the second largest source
of rural cash income, after migrant remittances. However,
changes over time were not necessarily all of noble intent.
Iliffe suggests that the National Party Government possibly
hoped to buy the compliance of Blacks in rural areas, in a
time of increasing resistance, through the provision of social
assistance to the elderly (Illife, 2011, cited in Olivier, 2011). The
state maintenance grant, on the other hand, has been identified
as a mechanism the Apartheid regime used to secure support
from the Coloured population. The use of social assistance
to help ensure electoral support is a phenomenon that many
have argued continues today as a form of patronage spending
(Bond, 2000).
The rationale for moving towards equality in social assistance
in the late 1970s and early 1980s may be thought of as
being an attempt by the Apartheid government to give the
2
15
SOCIAL SECURITY REVIEW
6 7 8 9 10 11
homeland system and the three-chamber parliament political
legitimacy.2 This led to a rapid increase in the funds flowing
to the homelands for social assistance, especially for the
elderly, albeit insufficient given the extent of poverty, the large
number of people who qualified in terms of the legislation and
the budget provided. Both the coverage of the Black elderly
population and the real value of the benefits paid increased
markedly, and in 1993 there were almost twice as many Black
pensioners inside the homelands as outside. This development
however, must be seen against the backdrop of increased
social unrest and popular protest against the Apartheid regime.
This trajectory continued until the dissolution of the Apartheid
regime, with the Nationalist government consolidating various
provisions for social assistance under the Social Assistance Act
of 1992. It was this Act that finally eliminated racial disparities
in social grants and set out the framework that has formed the
basis for the current social protection system. The timeliness
of this Act indicates that South Africa is an interesting case
as the legislation guiding post-Apartheid social security was
passed before the promulgation of the new constitution, and
spelled out the government’s future obligations regarding
social security. These commitments were largely based on
a socialistic democratic model and marked the beginning
of radical and praiseworthy developments regarding social
security. However, challenges to implementing this social
security system, as it developed post-1994, remain. There
are contradictions between the capitalist and neoliberal
commitments to the welfare state, as well as continuing
apartheid-based inequalities that remain unaddressed.
Social Security developments post-
1994
The previous sections highlight the historical precursors that
influenced the formation of South Africa’s contemporary social
security system. The period from 1994 to the present is now
explored under two themes: democratic social security reforms,
and the contradictions of market-driven commitments, which
influenced this transition. This period marked the dismantling
of the Apartheid system and with it the racially discriminatory
social security provisions and policies. It further saw the
development of a social democratic transition to rights-based
and developmental social welfare ideals, although, as the
authors reveal, with some contradictions and limitations to
authentic transition.
Democratic social security reforms
After April 1994, with the end of Apartheid and the
establishment of the African National Congress as the
democratically elected majority political party, the government
took major steps to reform institutional arrangements within
the social sector. The first was the separation of the welfare
and health portfolios at the national level; the second was
2 The Apartheid regime created a number of administrations (e.g. 10 homelands, and four provincial administrations for Blacks (Africans) outside the homelands and
a separate administration under the three chamber parliament for each of the other three racial groups). These administrations had a fair amount of discretion to set
rules and administrative procedures and decide which grants to provide and the benefit levels for their respective racial groups, but funding was determined by the
central government, which restricted their agency.
the establishment of a National Department of Welfare (later
the Department of Social Development); and the third was
the incorporation of the welfare functions of the former
Homelands and four Houses of Parliament into the national
programme. The Chikane Committee for the Restructuring of
the Social Security System was established in 1995 to identify
and address challenges to the delivery of a comprehensive
social security system. This period marks the point where
social assistance surpassed social insurance as the branch
of social security reaching the largest proportion of the South
African population.
The post-1994 period was further characterised by significant
policy developments on social assistance, which included the
White Paper for Social Welfare of 1997, the Social Assistance
Act of 2004 and the South African Social Security Agency
Act of 2004. This was a noteworthy time of transition to
the development of a social security system that has been
globally praised for the extent of its assistance. The White
Paper, for instance, outlined the government commitment
to establishing a comprehensive social security policy and
legislation (Makino, 2004). This commitment marked the
first attempt to reform the social security system, because
it recognised that the 1992 Social Assistance Act eliminated
racial discrimination, but left the old system in place. One of the
most remarkable successes in the transitioning of the social
security system during this period was the undertaking of the
Lund Committee. This Committee proposed the phasing out of
the state maintenance grant for children and the introduction
of an unconditional child support grant that reached a greater
number of children. The Committee also proposed that the
upper age for eligibility be adjusted progressively, from 7 years
to 18 years of age, as a mechanism for containing the cost
of this expanded programme. The Lund Committee exhibited
the ideals of the Reconstruction and Development Programme
(RDP), maintaining that welfare policy should not place too
much store on job creation as a mechanism for improving
living conditions, but should focus instead on meeting the
basic needs of the poor. The child support grant was launched
in 1998, allocating R100 for children younger than 7 years old
whose caregivers passed the means test criterion.
In 2000, Cabinet approved the establishment of an Inter-
ministerial Committee that would oversee the work of the
Taylor Committee’s Inquiry into the feasibility of introducing
a Comprehensive Social Security System in South Africa. The
Taylor Committee adopted the position that ‘Comprehensive
Social Protection’ is better suited for a developing country,
since it aims to ‘provide the basic means for all people living
in the country to effectively participate and advance in social
and economic life, and in turn to contribute to social and
economic development’ (Makino, 2004:18). The Committee
recommended that a Comprehensive Social Protection
Package should be established consisting of measures to
address income poverty (through the provision of social
SOCIAL SECURITY REVIEW
16 12345
grants), capability poverty (through the provision of healthcare,
education, water and sanitation, transport, housing, access
to jobs and skills), asset poverty (through the provision of
land, credit, and infrastructure) and special needs (through
disability and child support). The focus on tackling income
poverty first was because income poverty can be addressed
in the short term whilst asset and capability poverty only tend
to be significantly altered in the medium to long term.
A key reform of the social security system was the creation of
the South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) in 2004 but
‘social assistance benefits were administrated by the provincial
departments responsible for social development in each of the
nine provinces’ (Mpedi, 2008:16). This led to provincial-level
differentials in the quality and reliability of services being delivered.
Social insurance reforms became topical after the
establishment of the South African Social Security Agency,
the national agency mandated to manage, administer and pay
social security benefits. Cabinet set up an interdepartmental
team after differences of policy became apparent between
different government departments. After more than five
years, a consolidated government document was developed
presenting social insurance and social assistance reform
proposals.
The contradictions of market-driven
commitments
In reflecting on the development of the social security system
post-1994, and the gaps which may be identified in further social
security development today, it is necessary to contextualize
the factors driving a comprehensive policy framework for the
provision of social security in the wider policy debates that
were taking place at the time. In particular, it is necessary
to reflect on the shift from the 1994 Reconstruction and
Development Programme (RDP) to the Growth, Employment
and Redistribution (GEAR) Plan in 1996, which emphasised the
importance of creating human capacities and the concept of
developmental social welfare.
The RDP spelled out a vision for a new democratic South Africa
in which people would be granted access to services upon
a rights-based premise, and thus be enabled to participate
in society. The driving rationale was equitable development,
primarily through redistributive measures. The idea behind
the RDP was to significantly increase spending on service
provisions, as well as generate job creation, thereby tackling
marginalisation, inequality and unemployment rendered
under Apartheid rule. The approach was both people-centred
and people-driven. This period also marked the beginning of
rising advocacy from Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and
stakeholders for the greater coverage and benefit level of
cash transfers. This advocacy is clearly identified by several
outputs, including The 1997 White Paper for Social Welfare
and the 1996 Report of the Lund Committee on Child and
Family Support.
This focus on restructuring the state and drawing people into
employment, as the primary redistributive mechanism differed,
however, from the GEAR Plan of 1996, which replaced the RDP.
This policy identified cash transfer as an effective mechanism for
government to alleviate poverty and deliver on its constitutional
obligations regarding social security (Brown and Neku, 2005)
but doing away with many of the redistributive commitments
of the RDP in favour of market-driven commitments, and
elements of deregulation and decentralisation (Bond, 2000).
Sampie Terreblanche (in Visser, 2004:9) put it this way:
‘Perhaps the most important difference between the RDP
and GEAR was that, while the former expected the state
to conduct a people-oriented developmental policy, the
latter saw South Africa’s economic “salvation” in a high
economic growth rate that would result from a sharp
increase in private capital accumulation in an unbridled
capitalistic system. The government’s task in this was to
refrain from economic intervention and to concentrate on
the necessary adjustments that would create an optimal
climate for private investment.’
Thus, GEAR, while retaining state commitment to social
security measures through assistance grants that were
equitable and far-reaching in scope, reintroduced elements
of the ‘deserving poor’ concept and the idea of individual
responsibility for well-being. However, despite these
concerning contradictions within social policy development,
South Africa’s social security system had remarkable
successes in later years and continued to transition and
expand, particularly under the Committee of Inquiry into
a Comprehensive System of Social Security, known as the
Taylor Committee, of 2002. Thus, the authors do not argue
that GEAR had a stifling effect on social security development,
but rather that the ushering in of market-driven principles,
keeping in step with global shifts of Thatcherism (Bond, 2002;
Smith, 2014), held contradictions to the original commitments
of post-1994 policies and may deserve further attention and
exploration, against the backdrop of the country’s colonial
past; this is however outside of the remit of this chapter.
Conclusion
This chapter has offered an overview of the development of
South Africa’s social security system through reflections on
four key periods. The authors considered the situation prior to
1919, when social security measures were largely philanthropic
and church-based, with some formalisations; followed by 1919
to 1945, where social security began to be institutionalised,
with significant racial divides. These divides were widened to
include other non-White groups, however provision continued
to be differential in terms of quality and quantity. The period
1946 to 1994 was then discussed; focusing on the nature of
social security during Apartheid, and how this was influenced
and changed with emerging Apartheid resistance. Finally, the
social security system established post-1994 was reflected
upon, in terms of both the successes of this system against
the socialist democratic backdrop, as well as the continuing
challenges and contradictions woven through capitalist and
neoliberal advances.
2
17
SOCIAL SECURITY REVIEW
6 7 8 9 10 11
To conclude on the state of social security in South Africa post-
1994, it can be considered that despite necessary concerns
with market-driven shifts in thinking, South Africa’s social
security system design and coverage post-apartheid has
made it a leading example in the developing world. However,
extensive gaps remain in the provision of social insurance and
larger redistributive measures are still lacking. The inequality
promoted by the neoliberal model underlying policies such as
GEAR continue to hinder true transformation and until this is
adequately addressed, it is possible that social security, albeit
necessary and uplifting, will also serve to maintain an unfair
status quo. The National Development Plan holds extensive
promise in many of its commitments and aligns itself with the
principles of the RDP. However, there are still undercurrents
of market-driven dialogue that need to be critically assessed.
Unpacking the colonial foundations of South Africa’s social
security system reminds one of the long histories of inequality
that continue to leave their mark today, and encourages one
to reflect on social security measures post-1994 with this
understanding. The authors of this chapter caution that a
commitment to Western ideals, such as neoliberalism, may
contradict the great strides South Africa has taken to remove
itself from its colonial past.
References
Bond P (2002) Elite Transition. From Apartheid to Neoliberalism
in South Africa, London & Sterling, Virginia: Pluto Press.
Bromberger N (1982) ‘Government policies affecting the
distribution of income’ in Schrire R (ed) South Africa: Public
policy perspectives, Johannesburg: Juta.
Brown M. & Neku RJ (2005) ‘A historical review of the South
African social welfare system and social work practitioners’
views on its current status’, in International Social Work, 48,
3, 301-312.
Bundy C (1992) ‘Development and inequality in historical
perspective’ in Shire R (ed) Wealth or poverty? Critical choices
for South Africa, Cape Town: Oxford University Press.
Dubow S & Jeeves A (2005) South Africa’s 1940s: Worlds of
Possibilities. Cape Town: Juta.
Giliomee H (2003) The Afrikaners: Biography of a People,
Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
Iliffe J (1987) The African poor: a history, Cambridge: Cambridge
Univer sity Press.
Kruger JJ (1992) ‘State provision of social security: Some
theoretical, comparative and historical perspectives with
reference to South Africa.’ M. Comm. thesis, University of
Stellenbosch:
Makino K (2004) ‘Social Security Policy Reform in Post-
Apartheid South Africa: A Focus on the Basic Income Grant’
Centre for Civil Society Research Report No. 1, Centre for Civil
Society: Durban.
Marais MM (1943) ‘Armesorg aan die Kaap ender die Kompanjie,
1652-1795.’ in Archives Year Book for South African History, 6,
1-71.
Meth C & Piper S (1984) ‘Social security in historical perspective’,
Carnegie Conference Paper 250,’ South African Labour and
Development Research Unit, University of Cape Town.
Mpedi LG (2008) ‘Pertinent social security issues in South
Africa’ Socio-Economic Rights Project, Community Law
Centre: University of the Western Cape.
Olivier M (2011) ‘History of South African social security
system from the pre-apartheid era to the dawn of democracy
during early 1990s’, Monograph prepared for the Department
of Social Development (DSD), South Africa.
Patel L (1992) Restructuring Social Welfare. Options for South
Africa, Johannesburg: Ravan Press.
Pollak H (1960) Social development since Union, Johannesburg:
South African Institute of Race Relations.
Posel D (2005) ‘The Case for a Welfare State: Poverty and
Politics of the Urban African Family in the 1930’s & 1940’s’ in
Dubow S and Jeeves A (eds) South Africa’s 1940s: Worlds of
Possibilities, Cape Town: Juta.
Smith L (2014) ‘Historiography of South African Social Work:
Challenging Dominant Discourses’, in Social Work/Maatskaplike
Werk, 50, 2, 305-331.
Van der Berg S (1997) ‘South African social security under
apartheid and beyond’, in Development Southern Africa, 14, 4,
481-503.
Visser W (2004) ‘Shifting RDP into GEAR. The ANC
Government’s Dilemma in providing an equitable system of
social security for the “New” South Africa’, paper presented at
the 40th ITH Linzer Konferenz, 17 September 2004.
Woolard I, Harttgen K & Klasen S (2012) ‘The history and impact
of social security in South Africa: experiences and lessons’,
available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2011.647654,
site accessed February 14 2018.
SOCIAL SECURITY REVIEW
18 12345
Author Profiles
Mr Selwyn Jehoma is Managing Director for Economic Policy Research Institute (EPRI). He started his career in the
public service in March 1999 as a research coordinator at the Financial and Fiscal Commission focussing on financing of
social protection. He joined the Department of Social Development as the Director for Social Insurance (2000) and initiated
a comprehensive service delivery improvement drive. He was appointed as Chief Director: Grants Systems in 2001 and led
the establishment of the South African Social Security Agency.
After measurable success in the extension of the child support grant, and other social protection services, Jehoma moved
to the position of Deputy Director-General: Comprehensive Social Protection. Selwyn then coordinated several social
protection research and policy reform initiatives, including the need for a modern contributory social security system.
He completed an Honours Degree in Public Management in 1997, and attended the Pension Reform Courses of the World
Bank in 1999 (Harvard) and the ILO Social Protection course in 2005 (Italy). His has completed part of a Master’s Degree in
Social Security Systems and Management.
In January 2013, Jehoma joined the Economic Policy Research Institute (EPRI) as Managing Director in Pretoria Branch and
has subsequently undertaken assignment in 12 countries on the continent and 3 countries in Asia (India, Bangladesh and
Thailand) in support of social protection policy and service delivery reforms. Email: jehomas@gmail.com
Dr. Abigail Ornellas is a social sciences researcher, writer and postdoctoral research fellow at Stellenbosch
University. Following the completion of her Masters in 2014, she worked as a research associate for a dual EU-funded
Marie Curie Research Project, looking at the impact of Neoliberal Welfare Policy on civil society, vulnerable groups and
social work across 11 EU and non-EU countries, living and working with several academic teams in various countries over
a two-year period.
In 2016, Dr. Ornellas began employment as a research fellow for the Economic Policy Research Institute (EPRI) in Cape
Town, with a focus on social protection and service linkages. She was the lead research fellow on a Department of Social
Development (DSD) commissioned feasibility study exploring pathways for linking the Child Support Grant (CSG) with
developmental services. Alongside this, she assisted in several evaluative projects with UNICEF and WFP on social
protection and support in India, Thailand, Swaziland, Lesotho, Bangladesh and South Africa.
In 2017, Dr. Ornellas completed her PhD at Stellenbosch University, assessing the impact of neoliberal tenets on NGOs,
social services, and civil society in the South African context. During this time, Dr. Ornellas participated in several research
projects as an independent consultant. Dr. Ornellas has extensive dissemination experience, including international lectures
and presentations, as well as publishing several peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters. Email: abiornellas@gmail.
com
2
19
SOCIAL SECURITY REVIEW
6 7 8 9 10 11
SOCIAL SECURITY REVIEW
20 123453
3. SELECTED CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL
PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL SECURITY IN
SOUTH AFRICA
Marius Olivier
Introduction
This chapter reflects on the impact of the Constitution of the
Republic of South Africa, 1996 and related legal principles
on the development of social security in South Africa. It
provides conceptual clarification in relation to the notions of
(contributory) social security, (non-contributory or budgetary-
provided) social assistance and the wider concept of social
protection; noting that, as indicated by the Committee of
Inquiry into a Comprehensive System of Social Security for
South Africa (RSA, 2002), there are several reasons why the
traditional social security concept, based on employment-
based social insurance and categorical and means-tested
social assistance, is inappropriate in the South African context.
The chapter also considers, by way of background, the
exclusionary nature of the current social security regime,
the historically racially biased nature of the South African
system, and takes steps to develop a more comprehensive
system. It reflects on poverty, inequality and unemployment,
indicating that those affected by these factors are often
those who are excluded from the current fragmented social
security system.
The chapter then deals with the constitutional framework
supporting social security – with reference to the supreme
status given to the Constitution and its entrenched Bill of
Fundamental Rights, which includes the right to access to
social security, including the right to access to appropriate social
assistance, for those who are unable to support themselves
and their dependants. The constitutional framework also
includes several constitutional institutions other than the
courts, including the South African Human Rights Commission,
the Public Protector and the Public Service Commission.
The question of the right to access to social security is also
addressed. The Constitutional Court has held that socio-
economic rights are indeed enforceable. As is evident from,
among others, the key judgment in the area of access to social
assistance for permanent residents, the Court is prepared
to review programmes and policies against constitutional
prescripts, but stops short of ordering a specific distribution of
financial and other resources.
1 See Olivier M (2012) 'Social security: Framework' in J A Faris (ed) LAWSA (The Law of South Africa), second edition, Vol 13, Part 2, Durban: LexisNexis 34 et seq,
for a more detailed discussion of the matters covered in this chapter. See also Olivier M (2003) 'Constitutional perspectives on the enforcement of socio-economic
rights: recent South African experiences', in Victoria University of New Zealand Law Review, 33, 1, 117-151.
All the rights contained in the Bill of Rights are interrelated
and mutually supporting. Therefore, when developing the
social security system, the state must ensure that all related
constitutional values and rights, such as human dignity, freedom
and equality, are supported. The Constitutional Court has
repeatedly confirmed that there is a deliberate constitutional
focus on vulnerable groups and provision has to be made for
the most vulnerable and desperate in society.
South African courts have amply employed the constitutional
and statutory principles, embedded in the notion of just
administrative action, to intervene and assist particular social
assistance applicants and beneficiaries, for example in the
areas of delays in processing grant applications; the unilateral
withdrawal and suspension of grants; and irrational decision-
taking. The jurisprudence provides evidence of serious and
systemic service delivery failures. It is also indicated that
responsibility for social security implementation and service
delivery is shared not only by state institutions but also by other
agents within society, including individuals themselves. To the
extent that non-state actors may be involved in the delivery
of social security, they are bound by constitutional prescripts.
Other constitutional principles relate to the need to develop
a policy-based programme and legislative implementation
framework; the availability of a range of reasonable measures
at the disposal of government and the legislature; and the
requirement that the state must provide sufficient budgetary
support to give effect to the constitutional right to access to
social security.
In conclusion, it is suggested that this constitutional right is a
major poverty-addressing instrument. It requires an adequate
standard of living and a minimum level of support that should
be available to those affected. Given the exclusionary nature
of South African social security, there is a need to devise a
comprehensive programme to deal with the plight of the large
number of people who derive no protection from the South
African social security system. The absence of proper policies
in this regard would certainly leave the state exposed to major
constitutional challenges.
Conceptual framework1
Social security, social insurance and social assistance
Neither South African law nor the international literature
provides a clear and consistent approach to the concept of
social security. It has been suggested that social security is not a
21
SOCIAL SECURITY REVIEW
6 7 8 9 10 11
fixed concept (Berghman, 1991:9). Similarities exist with regard
to the list of social contingencies or risks (for instance relating
to health, unemployment, old age and employment injuries)
considered which are often referred to as the core elements
of social security. Most systems still rely on the traditional
distinction between social insurance and social assistance
embedded in the concept of social security (International Labour
Organization [ILO], 1984; Pieters, 2006). ‘Social insurance’
denotes contributory and risk-based schemes giving rise to
fixed benefit payments aimed at income maintenance, while
‘social assistance’ refers to tax-based benefit payments on a
universal or targeted basis aimed at minimum income support.
This distinction between social insurance and social assistance
appears to be aligned with the constitutional approach in South
Africa, because the 1996 Constitution uses ‘social security’ as
an ‘umbrella concept’, encapsulating inter alia the notion of
social assistance. The Constitution provides that everyone has
the right to access to social security including, if they are unable
to support themselves and their dependants, appropriate social
assistance (Constitution, section 27(1)(c)).
International instruments, South African policy documents and
academics provide different definitions of social security. Some
of these approaches define social security with reference to
a list of social risks,2 while others define social security in
terms of the involvement of the state,3 or in terms of the aims4
served by social security generally and/or particular schemes
specifically.
In its first two annual Economic and Social Rights Reports
(1997-1998 and 1998-1999) the South African Human Rights
Commission stressed the need for a proper concept of
social security in South Africa. It noted, inter alia, that the
social assistance notion adopted for purposes of the then
Social Assistance Act was too narrow from a constitutional
perspective, as it restricted the term to the income replacement
grants system.
Social protection
Social security has to be distinguished from the wider concept
of ‘social protection’. This concept is increasingly used
internationally either alongside, or as an alternative or wider
concept than social security. According to some commentators,
social protection denotes a general system of basic social
support which is no longer linked to the regular employment
relationship, and which is founded on the conviction that
society as a whole is responsible for its weaker members
– in other words, a system of general welfare support and
protection (Von Maydell, 1997).
It could be argued that the term ‘social protection’ also
encapsulates elements and rights related and ancillary to social
2 Such a list of social risks or contingencies is contained in ILO Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention 102 of 1952. In addition, the South African White
Paper for Social Welfare, Government Gazette 18166 GN 1108, 8 August 1997 defines ‘social protection’ as ‘policies that ensure adequate economic and social
protection during unemployment, ill-health, maternity, child rearing, widowhood, disability and old age’ and ‘social assistance’ as dealing with old age, disability, child
and family care and poverty relief
3 According to Barker FS and Holtzhausen M (1996:138) social security refers to ‘a system of assistance guaranteed by the state’
4 The Welfare White Paper lists poverty prevention, poverty alleviation, social compensation and income reduction as the domains of social security (ch 7 par 1)
5 Government of the RSA v Grootboom 2000 11 BCLR 1169 (CC) par 35; 2001 1 SA 46 (CC).
security itself. When combined with social security the presence
of these elements ensures adequate social protection. From a
South African constitutional rights perspective it is clear that
there is a close inter-relationship between the concept of social
security and several other concepts which constitute the basis
of specific fundamental rights, such as the right to have access
to land, housing, healthcare services, and sufficient food
and water (Constitution, sections 25(5), 26(1) and 27(1)). The
inter-relatedness of these rights, particularly within the South
African context, has been emphasised by the Constitutional
Court which has affirmed that realising a particular socio-
economic right, such as the right to access to housing, would
require that other elements which at times form the basis of
other socio-economic rights, such as access to land, must be
in place as well. Together, these rights are mutually supportive
and have a significant impact on the dignity of people and their
quality of life.5 Compliance with the right to access to social
security, and more particularly social assistance, could have an
impact on the extent to or way in which the other rights have
to be fulfilled. In Government of the Republic of South Africa v
Grootboom (2000: par 36) the court remarked:
‘The poor are particularly vulnerable and their needs require
special attention. It is in this context that the relationship
between sections 26 and 27 [of the Constitution] and the
other socio-economic rights is most apparent. If under
section 27 the state has in place programmes to provide
adequate social assistance to those who are otherwise
unable to support themselves and their dependants, that
would be relevant to the state’s obligations in respect of
other socio-economic rights.’
Committee of Inquiry into a
Comprehensive System of Social
Security for South Africa (2002)
As noted by the Committee of Inquiry into a Comprehensive
System of Social Security for South Africa, there are several
reasons why the traditional limited social security concept,
based on employment-based social insurance and categorical
and means-tested social assistance, is inappropriate for the
South African context (RSA, 2002). This follows from a range
of factors, some of which South Africa shares with other
developing countries: the extent of poverty and deprivation to
which millions of those who live in South Africa are exposed
and the exclusion presently of most of these people from
the reach of the social security system; the rise in informal
employment and the exclusion, likewise, of those so involved
from the reach of the system; constitutional imperatives which
grant social security entitlements on a non-discriminatory
basis and aim at enhancing human dignity, citizenship and
SOCIAL SECURITY REVIEW
22 123453
societal participation (Constitution: sections 9, 10 and 27(1)
(c)); the socio-economic imperatives of poverty reduction,
increased access to adequate basic services; the creation
of an environment for sustainable social and economic
advancement of all people and the close interrelationship
between and mutual reinforcing nature of these constitutional
and socio-economic imperatives.6 To this one could add long-
term unemployment which has become endemic, the absence
of sufficient employment creation, and the tendency of private-
sector and sometimes even occupational-based schemes to
exclude lower-income and higher risk categories of people in
order to maximise profit. For these reasons, then, according
to the Committee it is necessary to adopt the wider multi-
purpose notion of (comprehensive) social protection (CSP)
(RSA, 2002: 37-39).
The Committee stresses that a broad conceptualisation of
social protection has certain merits for South Africa, since it
incorporates developmental strategies and programmes more
appropriate to a developing country such as South Africa;
provides a coherent framework for integrating economic
and social policy interventions and could facilitate integrated
private, public and community sector interventions and benefit
systems. Such a system must be structured in a way which
should enable it to address social exclusion at its core.7 There
are certain core elements of the CSP basic platform that
should be available to all South Africans and certain categories
of non-citizens. In general, so the committee opines, these
components need to be established as an as-universal-as-
possible package of income transfers, services and access
provided in a non work-related manner and whose availability
is not primarily dependent on an ability to pay. A minimum
level or measure of provision to everyone should be made
available. As the final part of the package, the social insurance
component, which is partly privately organised, would have to
be reformed to ensure inclusivity, equity, consumer protection
and efficiency of the benefit types.8
Much of the approach suggested by the Committee is also
reflected in the current debate at the international level, with
specific reference to the recently-initiated drive towards the
establishment of a (global) social protection floor (SPF), and
the adoption of ILO Recommendation 202 of 2012 (ILO, 2012)
in this regard. The floor entails a basic level of social protection,
implying access to essential services and social transfers for the
poor and vulnerable. The SPF corresponds to a set of essential
transfers, services and facilities that all citizens everywhere
should enjoy to ensure the realisation of the rights embodied
in human rights treaties (Cichon, 2010). The Social Protection
Floor Initiative foresees that, in addition to and building upon
6 In Government of the RSA v Grootboom supra par 23 the court observed: ‘Our Constitution entrenches both civil and political rights and social and economic rights.
All the rights in our Bill of Rights are inter-related and mutually supporting. There can be no doubt that human dignity, freedom and equality, the foundational values
of our society, are denied those who have no food, clothing or shelter. Affording socio-economic rights to all people therefore enables them to enjoy the other rights
enshrined in Chapter 2 [of the Constitution].’
7 The following definition of the adopted concept of comprehensive social protection is suggested by the Committee: ‘Comprehensive social protection for South
Africa seeks to provide the basic means for all people living in the country to effectively participate and advance in social and economic life, and in turn to contribute
to social and economic development.’ (RSA, 2002: 40-41).
8 RSA, 2002: 41-43, 45, 47.
9 I.e. ILO Social Securit y (Minimum Standards) Convention 102 of 1952.
10 In 2008, it was estimated that about 26% of the economically active population were engaged in informal employment. See Leibbrandt M, Woolard I, McEwen
H and Koep C (2010) ‘Employment and Inequality Outcomes in South Africa: What Role for Labour Market and Social Policies?’ Southern Africa Labour and
Development Research Unit (SALDRU) and School of Economics Cape Town University of Cape Town, 16.
a basic level of protection for all, developing countries should
be able to extend the scope, level and quality of benefits to
the point of being able to ratify the main ILO instrument in the
area of social security.9 Country-specific and context-specific
approaches towards introducing and implementing social
protection floor interventions are advocated.
Background
It has been said that South Africa’s social security system is
remarkably comprehensive by a middle-income developing
country standard (Van der Bergh, 1997:481) but the system
lacks a coherent social security approach. The system was
racially skewed for a long time and although the formal racial
distinctions and divisions have been removed, the exclusion of
large groups of people who are mainly African, rural and female,
and categories of migrant workers and their dependants,
as well as the formal employment bias of a large part of the
system, remain in place. This is reflected in the legal system
which confirms these exclusionary tendencies. It restricts large
parts of the contributory-based part of the system (i.e., social
insurance schemes, such as the workmen’s compensation
schemes, the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and private
retirement schemes) to the formal-employment sector. The
system effectively excludes many from participation, and
adopts a categorical and means-tested approach as far as the
non-contributory part of the system (i.e., social assistance
grants such as the old age, child support and disability grants)
is concerned – only those who are poor and who belong to
the categories specified in the Social Assistance Act, 2004, are
entitled to receive the grant concerned.
A comprehensive overhaul of the social security system has been
announced by government, following the recommendations
made by the Taylor Committee (RSA, 2002). Substantial progress
has been made to develop a framework for a comprehensive
social security system (see, among others, Department of Social
Development [DSD], 2008), although the process to implement
concrete proposals has often stalled in recent years.
Exceptionally high levels of unemployment and poverty
characterise the socio-economic profile of South Africa.
The most recent unemployment figures put the official
unemployment figure at 29.1 per cent (Statistics South Africa
[Stats SA], 2020). In fact, South Africa’s unemployment rate
is significantly higher than those of other middle-income
economies and impacts disproportionately on Africans, the
youth and females (Bhorat, 2008; DSD, 2008). Also, informal
employment participation, aimed at bare economic survival
amongst the poor, is high.10
23
SOCIAL SECURITY REVIEW
6 7 8 9 10 11
Poverty is again on the rise. As noted by Statistics South Africa
(Stats SA, 2017: 14):
‘Despite the general decline in poverty between 2006 and
2011, poverty levels in South Africa rose in 2015. When
applying the upper-bound poverty line (R992 per person
per month (pppm) in 2015 prices), we see that more than
one out of every two South Africans were poor in 2015,
with the poverty headcount increasing to 55,5% in 2011.
This translates into over 30,4 million South Africans living
in poverty in 2015.’
The categories of the poor and informally employed mentioned
(in particular the rural poor) fall at the lower end of the income
inequality spectrum, contributing significantly to a very high
Gini co-efficient – estimated to be 0.68, calculated on the
basis of income per capita. Still, the population group with the
highest level of inequality is black Africans who experienced an
increase in Gini coefficient from 0.64 in 2006 to 0.65 in 2015
(Stats SA, 2017).
The limited nature of social security protection in the South
African system has affected the poor, as well as the informally
employed and structurally unemployed amongst them, in
particular. This is because the social insurance system, notably
unemployment insurance and compensation for work injuries
and diseases, does not generally provide coverage to those
outside formal employment. Social assistance measures
exclude sizeable categories of the poor and the informally
employed amongst them. This follows from the targeted
nature of both social services and programmes, and of the
various social grants.
Although the government has had some success in enhancing
access to resources such as housing, water, land and electricity,
these initiatives are often not well co-ordinated, sometimes
not comprehensive enough, and have partly failed to deliver
as expected.11
Constitutional framework supporting
social security
Human rights abuses under the previous political dispensation
in South Africa necessitated the adoption of a Constitution
that would avoid a repetition of past injustices, and forge a
new culture of accommodation, mutual respect, equality and
freedom. In one of its first judgments, the Constitutional Court
remarked that ‘the Constitution introduces democracy and
equality for the first time in South Africa. It acknowledges a
past of intense suffering and injustice, and promises a future
of reconciliation and reconstruction…’ 12
11 E.g., in Government of the RSA v Grootboom 2000 11 BCLR 1169 (CC); 2001 1 SA 46 (CC) the court found that while the state’s housing policy programme has had
some successes, one of the most deprived groups, notably people who have no shelter at all, has effectively been side-lined by the programme.
12 S v Mhlungu 1995 3 SA 867 (CC); 1995 7 BCLR 793 (CC) par 111.
13 Section 74(2) signifies enhanced protection accorded to the Bill of Rights, by requiring comprehensive support for its amendment: the amending Bill must be passed
by the National Assembly, with a supporting vote of at least two thirds of its members, while at least 6 provinces in the National Council of Provinces must cast a
supporting vote.
14 Constitution, section 184(1). The SAHRC fulfils its constitutional mandate by undertaking research in order to produce protocols to organs of state; by submitting
reports to Parliament and making them available to organs of state; by receiving individual complaints and involving itself in particular meritorious court actions (it
intervened in Government of the RSA v Grootboom 2000 11 BCLR 1169 (CC); 2001 1 SA 46 (CC) as amicus curiae); and by monitoring compliance with an order of
the Constitutional Court, e.g. when requested to do so by the court (as was the case in the Grootboom matter).
One of the hallmarks of the 1996 Constitution is therefore
constitutionalism. Supreme status has been granted to the
Constitution: it is the supreme law of the Republic. Any law
or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid and the obligations
imposed by it must be fulfilled (Constitution, section 2).
Constitutional supremacy has effectively replaced the notion of
parliamentary sovereignty, in terms of which Parliament could
enact social security laws which discriminated against various
people or groups of people on the basis of race or gender.
Alongside this, and supported by constitutional values such as
human dignity and equality, a Bill of Rights has been enacted
as part of the Constitution. The significance of the rights
contained in the Bill of Rights has been enhanced by a special
protection, which has been given to the Bill of Rights in the
case of any attempted change to these rights.13 The state has
been given a specific mandate to give effect to these rights
– section 7(2) of the Constitution stipulates: ‘The state must
respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights in the Bill of
Rights.’ Also, an obligation has been imposed upon the courts,
tribunals and forums, entrusted with the interpretation of any
legislation, to promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill
of Rights (Constitution, section 39(2)).
In addition, other constitutional institutions have also been
entrusted with upholding the Constitution, its values and
fundamental rights. For example, the Constitution grants an
important role to the South African Human Rights Commission
(SAHRC) in the area of fundamental rights advocacy, promotion
and monitoring.14 This constitutional role was specifically noted
by the Constitutional Court in Government of the Republic
of South Africa v Grootboom (2002: par 97) and entails the
monitoring, assessment and observance of human rights, as
well as the power to:
a investigate and to report on the observance of human
rights; and
b. take steps to secure appropriate redress where human
rights have been violated. (Constitution: section 184(2)
(a) & (b))
Also, according to section 182 of the Constitution, the Public
Protector has the power, as regulated by national legislation, to:
a. investigate any conduct in state affairs, or in the public
administration in any sphere of government, that is
alleged or suspected to be improper or to result in any
impropriety or prejudice;
b. report on that conduct; and
c. take appropriate remedial action.
SOCIAL SECURITY REVIEW
24 123453
Finally, wide-ranging powers of an investigative and advisory
nature are given to the Public Service Commission.15
For the first time in South Africa’s history, the Constitution
compels the state to ensure the ‘progressive realisation’ of
social security. Section 27 of the Constitution clearly and
unambiguously obliges the state to develop a comprehensive
social security system. It affirms the universal right to access
to social security, including appropriate social assistance for
those unable to support themselves and their dependants
(Constitution: section 27(1)(c)) and orders the state to take
reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available
resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of these rights
(Constitution: section 27(2)). Other fundamental rights are also
important to support the realisation and implementation of this
constitutionally protected right to access to social security, as is
discussed below. While these rights are not absolute, and are
subject to ‘reasonable and justifiable limitations’,16 the cumulative
effect of these rights is the extension of significant protection to
those who stand to benefit from social security, while imposing
stringent requirements on public and private providers of social
security – as explained in the rest of this chapter.
Can courts of law enforce the right to
access to social security?
Is the right to access to social security enforceable and
justiciable? It is sometimes argued that social security rights,
being so-called second-generation or socio-economic rights,
have to be contrasted with so-called civil and political (or first-
generation) rights that protect an individual against undue
interference by the state, such as the right to life17 and political
rights.18 It is often thought that, due to the peculiar nature of
social security rights as socio-economic rights, they cannot be
enforced by the courts without intruding upon the terrain of the
legislature and/or the executive branch of government.
However, no reference is made in the Bill of Rights to this
distinction. Social rights thus have exactly the same status as
other civil and political rights. The lack of differentiation between
15 These include the power to (Constitution: section 196(4)):
(a) promote the constitutional values and principles throughout the public service;
(b) ……….;
(c) propose measures to ensure effective and efficient performance within the public service;
(d) ……….;
(e) report on its activities and the performance of its functions, and to provide an evaluation of the extent to which the constitutional values and principles are
complied with; and
(f) undertake certain specific investigative, monitoring and advisory functions of its own accord or on the receipt of a complaint.
16 According to section 36(1) of the Constitution, a fundamental right can be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is
reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including those
specifically indicated in section 36.
17 Constitution of the Republic of SA, 1996: section 11.
18 Constitution of the Republic of SA, 1996: section 19.
19 See among others Ex parte Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly: In re Certification of the Constitution of the RSA, 1996, 10 BCLR 1253 (CC).
20 2004 6 BCLR 569 (CC).
21 Section 167(4)(e). See also Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly; Democratic Alliance v Speaker of the National Assembly 2016 (5) BCLR
618 (CC); 2016 (3) SA 580 (CC).
22 Ex parte Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly: In re Certification of the Constitution of the RSA, 1996 supra pars 76-78.
these apparent ‘categories’ emphasises the notion that the
rights are inter-related, interdependent and indivisible.19
These rights are therefore capable of enforcement – as has
happened in several constitutional cases; the legislature or
executive can be ordered to take action or be required to
consider and arrange for a more equal distribution of resources.
For example, in Khosa v Minister of Social Development;
Mahlaule v Minister of Social Development 20 government
was ordered to make available certain social assistance grants
to permanent residents, despite the fact that the legislation
required (as a rule) that a person had to be a South African
citizen in order to be eligible for these grants. The Constitutional
Court is specifically empowered to decide that Parliament, or
the President, has failed to comply with a constitutional duty.21
In addition, the remedies at the disposal of the courts, when
they decide upon these issues, are extensive.
How far will the court go? It may require the state to review
programmes and policies, but it is doubtful whether it would be
prepared to order a specific distribution of financial and other
resources. In certifying the draft text of the 1996 Constitution,
the Constitutional Court stressed that the socio-economic
rights contained in the Constitution are justiciable, even
though the inclusion of the rights may have direct financial and
budgetary implications.22 The Court remarked (par 77):
‘It is true that the inclusion of socio-economic rights
may result in the courts making orders which have direct
implications for budgetary matters. However, even when
a court enforces civil and political rights such as equality,
freedom of speech and the right to a fair trial, the order
it makes will often have such implications. A court may
require the provision of legal aid, or the extension of
state benefits to a class of people who formerly were not
beneficiaries of such benefits. In our view it cannot be
said that by including socio-economic rights within a bill
of rights, a task is conferred upon the courts so different
from that ordinarily conferred upon them by a bill of rights
that it results in a breach of the separation of powers’
(own emphasis).
25
SOCIAL SECURITY REVIEW
6 7 8 9 10 11
The Constitutional Court has subsequently affirmed this position.23
It is clear, therefore, that the courts can enforce social security
rights and can order state organs to act in a particular way (e.g., to
extend social assistance grants to categories of persons who are
excluded contrary to the requirements of the Constitution).
Where necessary, the court will also allow a class action to
be brought before it, in order to protect the interests of the
poor and vulnerable, in particular.24 In Permanent Secretary,
Department of Welfare, Eastern Cape Provincial Government
v Ngxuza25 the court commented on the institution of a class
action in circumstances where disability grants were suspended
unilaterally by the responsible provincial government:
‘The situation seemed pattern-made for class proceedings.
The class the applicants represent is drawn from the very
poorest within our society – those in need of statutory
social assistance. They also have the least chance
of vindicating their rights through the legal process.
Their individual claims are small: the value of the social
assistance they receive – a few hundred rands every
month – would secure them hardly a single hour’s
consultation at current rates with most urban lawyers.
They are scattered throughout the Eastern Cape Province,
many of them in small towns and remote rural areas.
What they have in common is that they are victims of
official excess, bureaucratic misdirection and unlawful
administ