Africa-Press – South-Africa. Public employment programmes balance the need for both economic and social aspects of well-being while a basic income grant prioritises economic well-being, while social well-being and social value is overlooked, writes Lauren Stuart.
The South African government’s introduction in May 2020 of a Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant to mitigate the effects of Covid-related job loss, and unemployment reignited a perennial debate: should the country introduce a basic income grant?
Those in favour of the idea suggested that the SRD grant – R350 paid monthly – could be extended until there is a comprehensive plan for guaranteed basic income for adults of working age with no alternative income sources. Researchers on all sides of the debate have conducted complex cost-benefit analyses; some of these have specifically focused on the cost of a universal basic income grant versus the ongoing costs of running public employment programmes.
Public employment programmes – South Africa’s most well known is the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) – which aims to provide people with temporary income support through employment and skills transfer. For example, participants might clean public ablution facilities in their communities or provide in-home care for elderly, ill or disabled people.
800 000 work opportunities
The programmes create what are called “work opportunities”, which are not the same as full-time, regular jobs. Between April and December 2022, the EPWP created more than 805,000 work opportunities.
Participants’ income is contingent on work being performed; by contrast, a basic income grant will operate like other cash transfers, where individuals who meet certain criteria qualify for a predetermined amount each month.
Those in favour of scrapping public employment programmes in favour of a basic income grant argue that it could be far more cost-effective and efficient to simply transfer cash directly to individuals than to create low-income work opportunities that require extensive oversight and coordination.
But this is an oversimplification. It ignores the possibility that forgoing the work component of public employment programmes could deny participants the opportunity to gain other work related benefits, like a sense of being productive, fulfilled and building work-based camaraderie. It could also compromise the benefits imparted to the wider community by such programmes, especially those that promote social care and social cohesion.
In my recently published PhD thesis, I studied how Public Employment Programme participants – and the surrounding community – perceived and experienced work obtained through such a programme.
Study site
I specifically wanted to gather data from participants who worked both for programmes housed under the EPWP and the Community Work Programme (CWP), a sub-sector housed under the EPWP but which is funded and designed differently. I chose Orange Farm, a township located south of Johannesburg’s city centre. It is home to nearly 77,000 people and is a low-income area.
I conducted 16 in-depth interviews with people involved in public employment programmes, five interviews with key informants from the community and held a focus group for community members. This was a qualitative study and is not meant to be generalisable: I wanted to hear in-depth accounts from participants and the community about their experiences with and views of public employment programmes.
Thirteen of the 16 programme participants said they would still want to work even if they received a basic income grant that amounted to enough to ensure their survival. This was because the programmes generated various non-income based benefits for them. They valued being able to work and to be productive; the act of working made them feel fulfilled, either through knowing that their work was useful to their community or through the satisfaction they derived from feeling productive. They also appreciated opportunities to build social networks.
Community members I interviewed acknowledged the programme participants’ work as useful, particularly services like Home Community Based Care, where the most vulnerable were being cared for and supported. Services which helped to keep the community safe and clean were also emphasised as being of value.
Drawbacks
Participants also expressed some frustrations with the programmes. The work was often tough; for example, caring for vulnerable community members – some of whom could not walk or wash themselves – in their homes was emotionally and physically taxing for some participants. Those who engaged in physical labour and cleaning, specifically of ablution facilities, found the work undignified at times.
And there is also tension within the community around who qualifies to work for a public employment programme and who does not. Many feel they are being overlooked and that recruitment is based on political affiliation.
It is also important to note that those that seemed to derive the most fulfilment from this work tended to benefit from other forms of government support, such as housing and other forms of cash transfer like the child support grant or an old age pension.
Undermining social value formation
This study demonstrated that replacing public employment programmes with a direct cash transfer like a basic income grant could significantly undermine social value formation at the individual and community level. Public employment programmes, by design, balance the need for both economic and social aspects of well-being, and both were highly valued by participants. In contrast, a basic income grant prioritises economic well-being, while social well-being and social value is overlooked.
It is also clear from this study that including other sources of income support (such as cash transfers) and assets (such as one’s own house), alongside public employment programme work, contributes to far better value formation, enabling people to potentially thrive rather than simply survive. Any debates about a basic income grant must consider how it can best interface with public employment programmes so that individuals and communities continue to benefit from much-needed community based services while meeting their basic needs for survival.
– Lauren Stuart is a recent PhD graduate currently pursuing a project manager role in the private sector. Prior to this she worked at the Centre for Social Development in Africa, where she administered research projects.
Want to
discuss hotly debated topics with someone from across the world? Sign up for our global dialogue programme
and get matched for a conversation
For More News And Analysis About South-Africa Follow Africa-Press
