12 October 2010 Livelihoods and Care: Synergies between Social Grants and Employment Programmes

1. 12 October 2010 Livelihoods and Care: Synergies between Social Grants and Employment Programmes National Labour and Economic Development Institute

2. Context and Background • SA labour market and poverty indicators remain dismal: • Unemployment rate (narrow) has never dropped below the 20% over the last 12 years and depending on the definition UR is now at 25% or as high as 37% • According to Bhorat and Van der Westhuizen: • Using a R323 poverty line (2000 prices) aggregate poverty declined, from 52.5 percent in 1995 to 49 percent in 2005 • Using a lower poverty line of R174 (2000 prices) the decline was by more than seven percentage points, from 31 percent to 24 percent – suggesting that those in deeper poverty experienced a relatively larger improvement in their welfare • Rising inequality using different measures

3. Achieving its Aims but Poor Policy Coordination? • Social grants extended to more than 13 million recipients, 3,5% of GDP or 13% of total expenditure • High take up rate for CSG and OAP • Significant contributor towards reducing head count poverty • However, Social Security measures fail to target structural unemployed • Very little coordination with public employment programmes • Target well achieved • However limited benefits due to: • No uniformed wage structure, though this is being achieved • Significant budget impetus needed to upscale and meet the 4.5 million target • Move beyond the shorter working period • Poor training outcomes • 60% of participants in households have access to social grants too

6. Impact of Social Security and Public Employment interventions • 60% of survey respondents in CASE data set receive at least one form of social grant in addition to their EPWP wage, this means that; • Positive impact for results where EPWP is effected • Access to social grants during EPWP participation significantly reduces the chance that a household will remain in poverty relative to EPWP participants who are without access to social grants • Though stand-alone provision of social grants also reduces poverty, the impact is accelerated if combined with EPWP participation however public employment programmes have more impact • Male and coloured participants are significantly more likely to escape poverty once entering the EPWP than female and African participants • If training was effective then it would increase the person’s ability to compete in the labour market and thus have more enduring impacts on poverty reduction

7. Wages and job duration in the EPWP by sector, 2004-2007 Source: EPWP (2005, 2006, 2007).

8. Poverty Impact • Mitchell’s analysis shows that; • Increasing the number of social grant recipients and EPWP participants suggest households close to the MLL poverty line • EPWP contribution reduces the probality of households being in poverty • EPWP with social grants reduces the probality of households in poverty just significantly but more so when other income is considered • Access to training during EPWP did not have an impact on poverty • Males have a greater chances of reducing poverty than females

9. Improving Wage Setting • Social Grants are close to saturation levels and will continue to make poverty impacts but not as significant as public employment programmes. • However this will require scale up that sees; • Labour intensive employment will be required and is requirement to access fiscal incentive • Wage standardization is being implemented but require to move to the upper band wage rate of R100 per day, supported by the national budget • Transitional interventions that support employees in ECD and HCBC to move into both public and private sector. This could significantly improve minimum wages, skills and longer employment contracts • Training and skills development must provide for better outcomes to improve formal labour absorption

10. Household Access to State Grants per Household Income Deciles, 1995 and 2005

11. Conclusions • Given the various studies public employment programmes can have a greater impact on reducing poverty and improving livelihoods and care • But complementarities and improved coordination of cash transfer and public employment to households must improve and improve poverty levels • Significant up-scaling will be required in all pubic employment programmes • The role of the state as an employee of last resort must be critical area of focus – in particular the need for increasing formal public sector employment at a transitional levels – engagement with unions would be crucial • Training and wage setting at correct poverty levels are important and will must require social partnership agreement

12. Page Heading Arial 18pt National Labour and Economic Development Institute contact details tel: 27-11-403-2122 I fax: 27-11-403-1948 I e-mail: naledi@naledi.org.za6th Floor, COSATU House, Leyds St, I Braamfontein I Johannesburg PO Box 5665 I Johannesburg I 2000 w w w . n a l e d i . o r g . z a