Abstract
Background:
The advent of the COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa and across the globe posed special challenges and implications for low-income families with children. In this study we explored the experiences of primary caregivers of children receiving a South African social assistance programme, the Child Support Grant (CSG), during lockdown in Cape Town, South Africa, and sought to understand whether and to what extent the underlying logic of cash transfers such as the CSG speaks to the pitfalls of the social protection paradigm and the potential for moving closer to a transformative social policy approach.
Methods:
We conducted 26 telephonic qualitative interviews with primary caregivers of recipients of South Africa’s CSG that were part of a longitudinal cohort study assessing the impact of the CSG on child nutritional status and food security.
Results:
Even though primary caregivers of the CSG and their children and households were already living in precarity before the pandemic, COVID-19, and particularly the hard lockdown, worsened their social, economic and living conditions, especially as regards hunger and food insecurity.
Conclusion:
Low-income women bore the brunt of the pandemic in their roles as mothers, providers and homemakers. The pandemic has highlighted the inadequacies of the social protection paradigm that underlies the design of cash transfers such as the CSG, which has a narrowed focus on chronic poverty and vulnerability. It has also highlighted opportunities to shift to a transformative social policy framework that incorporates production, redistribution, social cohesion, adequacy and protection.
Background
Historically, global pandemics always leave a devastating impact of death, economic and social insecurity in their wake. While previous pandemics such as the Spanish Flu (1918–1920) claimed more lives (>50 million) than any other pandemic in modern history (Taubenberger and Morens, 2006), COVID-19 ranks among the most destructive in the post-modern world, not least because it necessitated the sudden and drastic lockdown of countries in order to contain the spread of the virus. The COVID-19 pandemic, cited as the worst economic crisis since the 1929 Great Recession (OHCHR, 2020), has caused a global human and health crisis, the effects of which will last for years to come. By November 2021 there were over 258,569,023 COVID-19 cases and just over 5.1 million deaths worldwide (COVID-19 Visualiser, 2021). In South Africa these figures translate to about 2.9 million cases and nearly 90,000 deaths (NICD, 2021).
During this period, the global response to the pandemic centred social protection as a key mechanism for delivering relief to individuals and households in need, with many countries either introducing new or expanding existing cash transfer programmes, unemployment benefits and in-kind transfers to vulnerable individuals and households (OHCHR, 2020). While global relief efforts during this period have been widely lauded (OHCHR, 2020; ILO, 2021), criticism has been levelled against countries that waited until a global pandemic to effect basic social protection and relief systems that would have enhanced the resilience of vulnerable and poor populations during this pandemic. The temporary nature of many of the social protection and relief programmes that have been implemented as a response to the pandemic, in contexts where poverty and inequality are endemic, has also been highlighted as a limitation of the response (OHCHR, 2020).
The COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa and across the globe, with associated national lockdowns, posed special challenges and implications for household physical and material needs, food security, health and wellbeing. Between March 2020 and December 2021, South Africa was in various levels of lockdown (Figure 1) in order to contain the transmission of the virus, and the government’s disaster management proclamations at various times resulted in schools and early childhood development centres being closed, school feeding schemes coming to a halt, job losses, and a sharp rise in food insecurity. The social and economic impact of the lockdown has been severe, with the poor bearing the brunt of COVID-19 containment measures, as entire industries have been decimated, resulting in already high unemployment levels of above 20 per cent (StatSA, 2019) soaring to unprecedented heights at 34.4. per cent by the second quarter of 2021 (StatSA, 2021). South Africa first went into lockdown on 27 March 2020. When the first lockdown commenced, five alert levels were introduced and these ranged from Level 5 to Level 1 with varying restrictions to movement applied to each level. Between 2020 and 2021 the country moved back and forth between lockdown levels depending on the wave of the pandemic.
Summary of alert levels
Citation: Journal of Poverty and Social Justice 2023; 10.1332/175982721X16763892169334
Summary of alert levels
Citation: Journal of Poverty and Social Justice 2023; 10.1332/175982721X16763892169334
Summary of alert levels
Citation: Journal of Poverty and Social Justice 2023; 10.1332/175982721X16763892169334
The pandemic exposed the flaws in the South African food and social protection systems, in a context where living conditions, food and nutrition insecurity were already in crisis. Between September and December 2020, about 9.34 million South Africans experienced high levels of acute food insecurity, with projections of this number going up to 11.8 million people by March 2021 (IPC, 2021). In addition, food prices increased sharply and by October 2021, the household food basket increased by 10.2 per cent (PMEJD, 2021).
In response to the devastating economic impact of the pandemic, the South African government established a social and economic relief package which comprised economic support for businesses, budgetary shifts to prioritise healthcare spending, and increasing the amounts transferred by existing social grants, establishing a new COVID-19 Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant for unemployed adults between the ages of 18 and 59, a caregivers’ allowance grant for primary caregivers of children in receipt of the Child Support Grant (CSG), South Africa’s largest cash transfer programme, and providing food vouchers and parcels to vulnerable individuals and households.
The latter components of the social and economic relief package, that is, social grants top-ups (Table 1), food parcels and vouchers, had variable levels of success. In particular, difficulties with implementing the new SRD grant, due to a lack of systems to handle mass applications, and over-reliance on technology in a country where low-income populations and those living in rural areas have limited internet access, meant that there were significant hurdles in the beginning that resulted in late payments. Issues around the distribution of food vouchers and parcels have been particularly highlighted as a big limitation of the government’s social relief programme (Senona et al, 2021). Fewer than 2 million people received food parcels/vouchers in 2020 and yet the need far outweighed that number. What is important is that the COVID-19 SRD grant targeting unemployed people with no income, excluded primary caregivers of children in receipt of the CSG. This population was initially catered for in the CSG (Table 1), but as the caregivers’ allowance only remained in place for five months, the exclusion of primary caregivers from the SRD was met with a lot of contention.
Cash transfer component of the SA Covid-19 social relief package
| Cash transfer type | Amount per month in Rands/ZAR (US$) | Population targeted | Duration of receipt |
|---|---|---|---|
| Top-up of Child Support Grant (CSG) | R300 (18.92) | Children in receipt of the Child Support Grant | May 2020: 1 month |
| Top-up of Old Age Pension (OAP), Disability Grant (DG), Foster Care Grant (FCG), Care Dependency Grant (CDG) | R250 (15.77) | Existing recipients of all social grants besides the CSG | April-October 2020: 6 months |
| Covid-19 Social Relief of Distress Grant (SRD Grant) | R350 (22.07) | Unemployed people with no income, and not in receipt of other grants | May-October 2020: 5 months
|
| Covid-19 CSG Caregivers’ Allowance | R500 (31.54) | Primary caregivers of children in receipt of the CSG | June-October 2020: 5 months |
* From July 2021 primary caregivers of the CSG were allowed to apply for the SRD Grant
Within this context the CSG, transferring R480 (US$27) per child to over 12 million children, was the main source of income for many low-income households. This manuscript reports data from a qualitative study which explored experiences of primary caregivers of children receiving the CSG of securing food for their children and households in the context of poor living conditions during Levels 1–5 COVID-19 lockdown, in a township setting in South Africa.
To situate the study, we juxtapose the Social Protection Paradigm (SPP) against the Transformative Social Policy (TSP) framework (Mkandawire, 2007; Adésínà, 2010; 2011) as a way to theoretically anchor the article. Adesina (2010; 2011) posits the SPP as having been borne out of a shift from ‘the wider vision of social policy’ that defined the pre-structural adjustment programmes (SAP) period in sub-Saharan Africa which was characterised by universalism and the centrality of the state in welfare and service provision post-independence (Mkandawire, 1998), to a much narrower preoccupation with social protection as a social policy instrument of choice to address the failures of SAPs introduced in the early 1980s in the region (Adésínà, 2010). He argues that the failure of SAPs meant that social protection as an instrument was introduced as the ‘“social” side of the neoliberal framework, rather than a departure from it’ (Adésínà, 2010), intended to address the market failures associated with neoliberalism. This translates to a social protection approach that is fundamentally minimalist in nature, with a narrowed focus on chronic poverty (the poorest of the poor) and vulnerability, resulting in means-tested or targeted programmes that are entirely disconnected from economic policy (Adésínà, 2010; 2011). Such an approach to social policy results in targeted social protection programmes that transfer small amounts of money which fail to challenge or address the role of the neoliberal framework in creating and sustaining vulnerability. More fundamentally, the SPP limits social protection instruments to ‘protection for destitution’ (Adésínà, 2011), indeed, elsewhere cash transfers have been criticised for their inability to do more than create a kind of ‘sustainable poverty’ (du Toit and Neves, 2009). An alternative framework to the SPP is the TSP framework (Mkandawire, 1998; Adésínà, 2010; 2011). The TSP, unlike the SPP, is conceptualised as having multiple roles that go beyond the alleviation of chronic poverty, but which instead focus on production, redistribution, protection, reproduction, social cohesion and nation building, underpinned by notions of rights, equality and social solidarity (Adésínà, 2010). In the TSP framework the protective elements would include universal cash transfers that would be adequate to ensure a decent standard of living, which would additionally protect beneficiaries against covariate shocks such as COVID-19. The protective components of the framework would also go beyond income support to include access to quality healthcare.
In the foregoing we use this theoretical lens to frame the findings of the manuscript. In particular, we unpack whether and to what extent the findings of the study speak to the pitfalls of the SPP and the potential for moving closer to a TSP approach.
Methods
We conducted a qualitative rapid appraisal which included 20 telephonic qualitative interviews and six in-person interviews with participants (mother–child pairs) that we have been following up for two years in a longitudinal cohort study assessing the impact of the CSG on child nutritional status and food security in Langa, an urban township in Cape Town. For this qualitative piece of research we explored participants’ experiences of accessing social grants in the time of COVID-19 lockdowns; their experiences of securing food for their children and households, experiences of restrictions to movement, loss of earnings due to not working and social distancing in the context of poor living conditions; and what they saw as the role of social grants in providing support to impoverished and vulnerable households and communities.
South Africa first went into lockdown on 27 March 2020. When the first lockdown commenced, five alert levels were introduced, and these ranged from Level 5 to Level 1 with varying restrictions to movement applied to each level. The country has moved back and forth between lockdown levels depending on the wave of the pandemic (Figure 1).
The study reported in this manuscript was conducted during Levels 5, 4 and 3 and 1 between May 2020 and April 2021.
Setting
The township of Langa in the Western Cape is home to 52,401 residents (StatSA, 2021). Established in 1927, it is the oldest township in Cape Town, first established as part of the Urban Areas Act of 1923 which segregated the country by racial groups. Steeped in history, Langa has seen various changes in its 100 years of existence, including the expansion of large informal settlements, a small, but established low-middle class, and a strong informal sector. Even though Langa township is in an urban setting, its spatial and economic exclusion from wealthier and more central parts of Cape Town make it a marginalised area suffering some of the same issues faced by peri-urban and rural settings in South Africa, such as high levels of poverty and deprivation, poor living conditions and poor access to quality health services, education and employment opportunities.
Sampling
The 26 primary caregivers who participated in the study were sampled from the aforementioned longitudinal birth cohort study, which recruited 526 mother–child pairs in pregnancy and followed them until their children were 2 years old. The cohort ran from 2016 to March 2020. From April 2020 to April 2021 we enrolled 26 primary caregivers from the cohort into the qualitative study. Participants were selected according to CSG receipt status and living conditions (formal or informal housing/area; access to water and adequate sanitation). The inclusion criteria relating to living conditions was important because it directly spoke to COVID-19 risk of transmission as poor living conditions were associated with greater risk of transmission (having no yard space for children to play in; having to share water and ablution facilities in informal settlements); and so we wanted to compare the experiences of caregivers and households who had different living conditions. All but six interviews, were conducted telephonically as they occurred during Level 5 of the lockdown in 2020.
As reflected in Table 2, the primary caregivers were between the ages of 22 and 42 years. The children were between the ages of 2 and 4. Households had between one and seven children; and the average household size was 4.6. The majority of primary caregivers were single, and were not in formal employment, however a substantial number (15/26) were engaged in casual, informal work before the pandemic.
Primary caregivers’ characteristics
| Primary caregivers’ characteristics | N=26 |
|---|---|
| Age range of primary caregivers | (22-42) |
| No. of children in household (range) | 1-7 |
| Average household size | 4.6 |
Marital Status:
|
|
| No. in formal employment before lockdown | 2 |
| No. in informal employment before lockdown | 15 |
| No. in formal employment during lockdown | 1 |
| No. in informal employment during lockdown | 0 |
Data collection and analysis
As the majority of the interviews were conducted during Level 5 of the lockdown, where face to face contact with members outside one’s household were prohibited, all the interviews conducted during Levels 5–3 were conducted telephonically in 2020. A further six interviews were conducted in person during Level 1 from March to April 2021 in order to capture primary caregivers’ experiences of caring for their children during a less strict level of lockdown while no longer accessing the Caregivers’ Allowance, which ended at Level 3.
Interview topic guides were developed by the lead author with input from study co-investigators. The interviews were conducted in the main language spoken in the area, isiXhosa, and recorded. Interviews were conducted until we reached data saturation.
Data were analysed using thematic content analysis following the steps outlined by Braun and Clarke (Braun and Clarke, 2006). This entailed reading each transcript, making notes on the margins, before coding the data and transforming repeated codes into themes and sub-themes. Each audio recording was transcribed and translated into English and checked against the original recording to ensure accuracy by independent transcribers. During each interview, the lead author took notes to capture key points as well as to note non-verbal communication such as crying, sighs, pauses and silences which was particularly important for the telephonic interviews to connect the data (the transcribed words) to the different feelings that came up during the interview; this brought more life to the data or words of participants during analysis. The lead author led the analysis through initial coding of the data where each transcript was read, resulting in the generation of initial codes, these were transformed into categories, and the categories were converted into major themes. Co-authors checked the analysis and consensus was reached on themes and sub-themes.
Ethics
This study received ethical approval from the South African Medical Research Council (EC036-11/2015). As the interviews conducted in 2020 were during Level 5 of the lockdown, consenting procedures were conducted telephonically. The information sheet explaining the study was read over the phone, and once we were satisfied that each participant understood the study objectives and all their questions satisfactorily answered, consent was sought, received and recorded telephonically. When the country moved to Level 1, each participant was visited to record additional written consent. All participants were each given grocery shopping vouchers worth R150 (US$9.47) to compensate them for their time. Compensation of participants is in line with the South African Medical Research Council’s ethical guidelines, based on the South African Good Clinical Practice recommendations (Department of Health, 2020), for conducting research which require research participants to be reimbursed for their time, in recognition of and respect for the principle that low-income people’s time is not free.
Results
The sample for this study can be categorised into three types of primary caregivers who were recipients of the CSG:
primary caregivers with no other source of income besides social grants, entirely reliant on the CSG and/or other social grants;
primary caregivers who were either in some type of employment or who had partners/husbands who were employed before the lockdown, but whose income ended during and because of the lockdown;
a primary caregiver who was engaged in low-paid work before and during the lockdown.2
From the analysis of data, six global themes have emerged around i) loss of income during COVID-19; ii) food insecurity and hunger; iii) coping with food insecurity; (iv) impact of lockdown on relationships; (v) disruption of reciprocity networks; vi) feelings about social grant top-ups and termination.
Loss of income during COVID-19
Even though my husband could go run his [informal] business [of building windows] again at Level 4, but he needed a permit to do that, and here in Langa we were told that we had to pay R350 for a permit and we do not have that money so he cannot even try. (PCG 1)
This meant that for some households, even when the lockdown rules were relaxed, they continued to be unable to improve their financial situation.
Among the participants we interviewed the impact of loss of income seemed to be mediated by access to the UIF, with households that had workers in formal employment, even if this was low-paid work, receiving the UIF. However, even for these households, receipt of UIF only started two months into lockdown, thus many households experienced the first month or two of lockdown as especially tough. UIF was also only paid out for a maximum of two months for people who temporarily lost their incomes during Levels 5 and 4 of lockdown.
Food insecurity and hunger
It is difficult because we are struggling, we do not have enough to eat, it was not so bad when I had casual jobs to assist… I would use money from the two support grants and when possible, I would add from the money I would get from the occasional piece job. (PCG4)
Food is finished, for instance I did not go out to work this month so food has run out… The [groceries] gradually run out until there is nothing. (PCG2)
Now [fruit and meat] that is very scarce for us to get… We have not had it [this past week]. Not at all. (PCG12)
It was difficult because of the children, especially because they have to constantly eat; the older one when she was at school it was much better. Now that she is home, I have to buy cereal for both of them. She [used to] get her daily meals from school, all I needed to do was cereal in the morning and send her to school. Now they are both home I have to give all those meals, I have to buy more for them. (PCG5)
Coping strategies
Meal skipping or food rationing as a coping strategy
Since we always buy our groceries in bulk; it lasts a little longer but since everyone is at home everything goes out much faster. The children are least affected because we buy their groceries separately from the family groceries. (PCG3)
[W]hen we cook in this house, [my husband and I] have to make sure that we only eat once a day so that the children can continue eating during the day, and have more meals out of that pot. (PCG5)
I eat 2 times a day, morning and lunch… I only have supper if I did not eat lunch, I don’t usually eat supper because I have to save the food for my daughter. (PCG12)
You cannot buy hygiene products when you are hungry, when you do not have enough food to eat, because children do not understand and are not yet able to sacrifice and not eat when they are hungry, they simply ask and expect food right then… It is difficult to even buy body lotion and even underarm deodorant. (PCG4)
What can I do? When there is no food, there is no food. (PCG3)
Food parcels as a coping strategy
No; there were very few people who got them here in Joe Slovo in my area, and we were not one of them… I do not know, we just saw that people from the other street on top, got them delivered to them. (PCG12)
[The lockdown] did not have much effect on us because I got help from groceries [food parcels] we got from my daughter’s school; my son’s crèche and from the baby’s nurses. I often have nurses who come and check up on the baby. So, they added me on the list of people who need food; so that helped. (PCG 21)
The thing is with S****, what happened was that there were people who were sex workers and we also become part of that group. I said but I am not a sex worker, and Portia said even if I’m not a sex worker I may as well be one because I stay in a house with my boyfriend and the money that he gives me to do my hair is the same as someone who is a sex worker. So, she said I can be in that group… I joined for the first time last year December. You pay R50… [the food parcel] was a lot… 5kg, 5kg, 5kg [of staples], and tins and peanut butter. Everything… A car from S****, came to the shacks [with the food parcels] and they called out people’s names from a book. (PCG 22)
Besides these two participants, none of the other primary caregivers interviewed had received a food parcel from the government at the time of interview, even though some knew of neighbours and community members who had. It was unclear what criteria were used to determine eligibility and access to the food parcels.
Impact of lockdown on relationships
I am the one who has to figure out what to do, I am the one the children come to. (PCG7)
You know men, they can’t cope with feeling useless. (PCG 3)
Yes, there is tension and conflict because we only have the one Child Support Grant to live on and men cannot handle having to rely on someone or something that is not his and that he did not work for himself – he prefers to work for his living. (PCG5)
It makes life difficult when people are at home and they are all struggling and are always at home, it creates tension and conflict as well. (PGC5)
Reciprocity networks
Who would loan you money at a time like this? No one has money to spare, no one has food. (PCG2)
People do not lend money out to people anymore because everyone is not working and therefore do not have money to pay them back. The little money one gets one would not readily pay you back but would rather buy food for themselves instead – people are not going to go hungry just because they owe you money. (PCG5)
It was horrible, particularly at the start of the pandemic… I had no one to turn to when I had nothing, and my daughter would when she sees other children with a sweet or snack she would want some as well. I preferred that we were home together than her in the streets but because she is a child I cannot hold her down when she wants to go outside and play. (PCG 12)
We ran out of food last year during lockdown. So, I called my grandmother. I told her we have run out of food. She told me to come get some money. So, I got a neighbour to loan me taxi fare and went to get the money from her. I went to buy food with the money my grandmother gave me. (PCG 16)
There was a difference, because they couldn’t help because they were not working as well, their workplaces were closed as well. (PCG 12)
There is a lady next door who often shares those with us… like the young lady who just came to drop off [vegetables]… they help me a lot, they are very generous, they often just call me out the window to give me whatever they can spare, just like the one who just called me now. (PCG12)
Feelings about social grants top-ups and termination
Yes; it made a huge impact because at that time our floor was flooded; we often had to abandon our house and seek shelter elsewhere. Because of the increase I could afford to buy cement and mend the floor. (PCG 12)
[The discontinuation of the grant] made an awful difference. Things went back to how they were [before the top-up]. (PCG 12)
That time [December] is very horrible for us because we always have nothing, just like this past [December] we just had, we had nothing. (PCG12)
The increase did not really make much difference because at the same time grocery prices increased at the stores we buy from. So it really then made no difference for us; we afford the same as we did when we had R400. I realised that I couldn’t even afford Vaseline for the kids because every item has gone up, mealie meal has gone up and all staples. (PCG5)
We should not have to choose between hunger and death, just because we are poor… other people are not having to make that choice. (PCG9)
Discussion
This manuscript reported findings from a qualitative study that explored the experiences of primary caregivers of children receiving the CSG in Cape Town, South Africa during the COVID-19 lockdown. The findings speak to the lived experience of low-income women trying to feed and provide for their children during a global pandemic.
The high levels of food insecurity and hunger reported in this study correlate with quantitative and qualitative data that have been published during the pandemic by other studies in South Africa and beyond (van der Berg et al, 2021) (Casale and Shepherd, 2021). The National Income Dynamics Study (NIDS) Coronavirus Rapid Mobile Survey (CRAM) Waves 1 to 5 consistently reported increasing levels of hunger. In the NIDS CRAM Wave 5 report, about 10 million adults and 3 million children were recorded as living in a household affected by hunger in the previous seven days in April/May 2021, and about 400,000 children and 1.8 million household members lived in households affected by ‘perpetual hunger’ (van der Berg et al, 2021).
Strategies to shield children from hunger reported in this study very much concur with other studies that have shown that while hunger increased significantly for adults living in low-income households during the pandemic, it was less so for children (van der Berg et al, 2020). For instance, while 22 per cent of households reported ‘anyone in the household’ going hungry in the last seven days in 2020, only 15 per cent of those households reported children specifically going hungry in that same period (van der Berg et al, 2020). However, the NIDS CRAM also reported that the shielding of children ‘declined with the extent of household hunger’ (van der Berg et al, 2020), a finding that was also reported in this article.
We found that low-income women bore the brunt of the pandemic in their roles as providers and homemakers. Caregivers not only had the primary responsibility for ensuring there was enough food for their children and households, they also took on the emotional burden of keeping their partners’ spirits buoyed up, even as they themselves struggled with the stress of needing to provide for their children and households. In this way, similar to reports from across low- and middle-income countries during the pandemic (FAO et al, 2021; MVMA Blog, 2022), the women in our study acted as ‘shock absorbers of poverty’ in their households. In mainstream literature the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on women has been documented, often in relation to earnings and employment (Casale and Shepherd, 2021; StatSA, 2021), and the struggles of maintaining a work–life balance, with women being frequently reported as the gender that took on more responsibility for homeschooling and caregiving while also having to ‘work from home’ (Fischer and Ryan 2021). In low-income settings, research on gender inequalities has mainly focused on the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on the earnings and economic situation of poor women, and the increase in childcare responsibilities. In South Africa for instance, the Stats SA’s Labour Force Survey has shown that women, especially Black women, have fared worse than their male counterparts in terms of loss of earnings and employment during the pandemic. In our study, the finding that the pandemic had worsened the income security of unemployed CSG recipient primary caregivers, due to loss of earnings from low-paid casual work, concurs with existing evidence which shows that grant-receiving households engage in informal work to supplement the CSG (StatsSA, 2018). The CSG has always been too little on its own to fully meet the needs of recipient children, and primary caregivers rely on additional sources of income, including casual work, to stretch it. The pandemic, especially Level 5 of the lockdown dissipated these additional sources of income, making it more difficult for primary caregivers to feed themselves and their children.
A few studies have also focused on gender dynamics and gender-based violence during the pandemic (Turquet and Koissy-Kpein, 2020; Dekel and Abrahams, 2021). These studies report similar findings to this article in relation to increased levels of stress and conflict in households and between couples during, and as a direct result of, the pandemic and its associated lockdowns and loss of income. Our findings further speak to existing social policy debates about the extent to which small cash transfer programmes in LMICs entrench gender asymmetries in households (Molyneux 2010). In our study, primary caregivers of CSG recipients experienced greater suffering directly related to their role as women who had the responsibility of taking care not only of their children, but the physical and emotional wellbeing of the entire household, including their male partners.
The pandemic has highlighted both inadequacies and opportunities in the social protection system of South Africa. Inadequacies, in that the amounts of money that comprised the social relief package were small and failed to be linked to in-kind components of the package such as food parcels and vouchers; and the COVID-19 social relief package ended far too soon. Another inadequacy is the lack of a comprehensive social security system that is able to provide for all members of society that need income support and care. The current South African social assistance system only caters for the most vulnerable (children, the elderly, and those too ill to work), without taking into consideration the context in which many of these categorical cash transfers are introduced – such as high rates of unemployment which result in the dilution of a cash transfer such as the CSG; or the lack of the caregiver component in the CSG which means that primary caregivers are often forced to neglect their own genuine basic needs (food, hygiene) and to spend the transfer on members of the household beyond the index child. The inadequacies are a reflection of the limitations inherent in the SPP (Adésínà, 2011) which delinks social policy from economic policy, with a preferred focus on vulnerability, categorical cash transfers that focus on the poorest of the poor, and consequently design choices that lead to policy instruments that are minimalist and finely targeted, and which do not question or challenge the economic paradigm which creates vulnerability in the first place (Adésínà, 2011). The social protection paradigm, as aforementioned, results in policy instruments that are non-transformative (Adésínà, 2011), creating a type of ‘sustainable poverty’ (du Toit and Neves, 2009).
Notwithstanding these obvious limitations of the social protection paradigm, which are evident in South Africa’s social assistance system, and especially in its COVID-19 social relief package, there are definite areas of strength and opportunities for the country’s social security system to be more transformative along the lines of the TSP framework, that have been highlighted by the pandemic. The government was able to establish and implement new grants and effect seamless top-ups to existing grants in a relatively short space of time, attesting to the robust and advanced nature of the South African welfare system. Civil society and advocacy groups in the social protection space have seen this as a window of opportunity for putting Basic Income Support or Universal Basic Income and the need for special provision for primary caregivers of CSG recipients, back on the policy agenda, using the implementation of the social relief package as proof that it is possible to expand the country’s social protection system to make it more comprehensive and more responsive, and thus with greater transformative potential.
Conclusion
COVID-19 and its mitigation strategies had a devastating impact on the global economy and people’s lives. Low-income women, especially primary caregivers of young children, bore the brunt of the pandemic in their roles as providers and homemakers. The CSG, already inadequate to meet the needs of recipients before the pandemic, was unable to mitigate the full impact of COVID-19 on children’s diets, hunger and food security. It was only the introduction of the Caregiver’s Allowance, and the once-off top-up of the CSG, which eased the burden for many primary caregivers and their children, but the termination of this grant within five months of its introduction, left these mothers and their children stranded, their reciprocity networks shattered, resulting in deepened vulnerability. The reinstatement of the Caregiver’s Allowance would be an acknowledgement of the unpaid reproductive labour of low-income primary caregivers which increased during the pandemic and would recognise their rights and entitlement to social assistance.
Finally, the adoption of an adequate Universal Basic Income expressly linked to economic growth, would be more aligned with a TSP approach, and would ensure that none among us are forced to choose between ‘hunger or death’ during major disruptive events such as COVID-19.
Funding
This study was funded by the South African Medical Research Council’s Intra-mural Units (IMU) Funding.
Acknowledgements
We thank the mothers and their families for their contribution to this study.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
References
Adesina, J.O. (2010) Rethinking the Social Protection Paradigm: Social Policy in Africa’s Development, Florence: European University Institute (EUI), https://socialprotection.org/discover/publications/rethinking-social-protection-paradigm-social-policy-africa%E2%80%99s-development.
Adésínà, J.O. (2011) Beyond the social protection paradigm: social policy in Africa’s development, Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 32(4): 454–70, doi: 10.1080/02255189.2011.647441.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology, Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2): 77–101, doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Casale, D. and Shepherd, D. (2021) The Gendered Effects of the COVID-19 Crisis and Ongoing Lockdown in South Africa: Evidence from NIDS-CRAM Waves 1–5, Cape Town: NIDS-CRAM.
Dekel, B. and Abrahams, N. (2021) ‘I will rather be killed by corona than by him…’: experiences of abused women seeking shelter during South Africa’s COVID-19 lockdown, PLoS One, 16 (10): e0259275. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259275
Department of Health, Republic of South Africa (2020) South African Good Clinical Practice: Clinical Trial Guidelines, Pretoria: South African Health Products Regulatory Authority, https://www.sahpra.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/SA-GCP-2020_Final.pdf.
du Toit, A. and Neves, D. (2009) Informal Social Protection in Post-apartheid Migrant Networks: Vulnerability, Social Networks and Reciprocal Exchange in the Eastern and Western Cape, BWPI Working Paper, 74, Manchester: Brooks World Poverty Institute, University of Manchester, https://hummedia.manchester.ac.uk/institutes/gdi/publications/workingpapers/bwpi/bwpi-wp-7409.pdf.
FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO (2021) The State of Food Security and Nutrition in The World 2021. Transforming Food Systems for Food Security, Improved Nutrition and Affordable Healthy Diets for All, Rome: FAO, doi: 10.4060/cb4474en.
Fischer, A. and Ryan, M. (2021) Gender inequalities during COVID-19, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24 (2): 237–45. doi: 10.1177/1368430220984248
ILO (2021) World Social Protection Report 2020–22: Social Protection at the Crossroads ‒ in Pursuit of a Better Future, Geneva: ILO.
IPC (2021) South Africa Impact of COVID-19 on Food Security, February, Bonn: IPC.
Mkandawire, T. (1998) Thinking about developmental states in Africa, Paper presented at the UNU-AERC workshop on Institutions and Development in Africa held at the UNU Headquarters, Tokyo, Japan on 14–15 October, https://archive.unu.edu/hq/academic/Pg_area4/Mkandawire.html.
Mkandawire, T. (2007) Transformative social policy and innovation in developing countries, European Journal of Development Research, 19: 13–29, doi: 10.1080/09578810601144236.
Molyneux, M. (2010) Conditional cash transfers: a ‘pathway to women’s empowerment’?, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/57a08b4eed915d3cfd000c52/PathwaysWP5-website.pdf.
Munje, P.N. and Jita, L.C. (2019) The implementation of the school feeding scheme (SFS) in South African Public primary schools, Educational Practice and Theory, 41 (2): 25–42. doi: 10.7459/ept/41.2.03
MVMA Blog (2022) Women as shock absorbers: measuring intra-household gender inequality, https://mvam.org/2022/03/08/women-as-shock-absorbers-measuring-intra-household-gender-inequality/.
NICD (National Institute of Communicable Diseases) (2021) COVID-19 Statistics, (updated November 2021), https://www.nicd.ac.za/.
PMEJD (Pietermaritzburg Economic Justice & Dignity) (2021) Household Affordability Index, Pietermaritzburg: PMEJD.
OHCHR (Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) (2020) Looking Back to Look Ahead: A Rights-based Approach to Social Protection in the Post-COVID-19 Economic Recovery, Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights, 11 September, United Nations Human Rights Special Procedures, Geneva: OHCHR, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Poverty/Covid19.pdf.
Senona, E., Torkelson, E. and Zembe-Mkabile, W. (2021) Social Protection in a Time of Covid: Lessons for Basic Income Support, Mowbray: Black Sash Trust.
StatsSA (2018) General Household Survey 2017, Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.
StatSA (2019) Quarterly Labour Force Survey Q4: 2019, Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.
StatSA (2021) Quarterly Labour Force Survey Q2: 2021, Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.
Taubenberger, J.K. and Morens, D.M. (2006) 1918 influenza: the mother of all pandemics, Emerging Infectious Diseases, 12(1): 15–22. doi: 10.3201/eid1209.05-0979
Turquet, L. and Koissy-Kpein, S. (2020) COVID-19 and Gender: What do we Know; What do we Need to Know?, 13 April, New York: UN Women and Women Count, https://data.unwomen.org/features/covid-19-and-gender-what-do-we-know-what-do-we-need-know.
van der Berg, Zuze, L. and Bridgman, G. (2020) The Impact of the Coronavirus and Lockdown on Children’s Welfare in South Africa: Evidence from NIDS-CRAM Wave 1, Cape Town: NIDS-CRAM.
van der Berg, S., Patel, L. and Bridgman, G. (2021) Food insecurity in South Africa: evidence from NIDS-CRAM Wave 5, Development Southern Africa, 39(5), doi: 10.1080/0376835X.2022.2062299.
