Attitudes to work and social security in South Africa pot

Michael Noble, Phakama Ntshongwana & Rebecca Surender
Attitudes to work
and social security
in South Africa
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za
Commissioned by the Urban Rural and Economic Development Research Programme of
the Human Sciences Research Council and prepared by the Centre for the Analysis of
South African Social Policy, University of Oxford.
Published by HSRC Press
Private Bag X9182, Cape Town, 8000, South Africa
www.hsrcpress.ac.za
First published 2008
ISBN 978-0-7969-2219-9
© 2008 Human Sciences Research Council
Copyedited by Karen van Eden
Typeset by Simon van Gend
Print management by comPress
Distributed in Africa by Blue Weaver
Tel: +27 (0) 21 701 4477; Fax: +27 (0) 21 701 7302
www.oneworldbooks.com
Distributed in Europe and the United Kingdom by Eurospan Distribution Services (EDS)
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7240 0856; Fax: +44 (0) 20 7379 0609
www.eurospanbookstore.com
Distributed in North America by Independent Publishers Group (IPG)
Call toll-free: (800) 888 4741; Fax: +1 (312) 337 5985
www.ipgbook.com
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

List of tables and figures iv
Acknowledgements v
Acronyms vi

 


3.1 The importance of work 3
3.2 Seeking employment 5
3.3 What happens if you lose your job? 9
3.4 Grants for unemployed people 10
3.5 Support for the state’s role in income maintenance/comprehensive
social security 11
3.6 Social grants as a government priority 11
3.7 Are social grants enough to live on? 13
3.8 Deserving or undeserving poor? A culture of welfare dependency? 14
3.9 Relationship between work and grants 15
3.10 Lone parents 16



Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za
iv

Tables
Table 3.1: ‘I feel alright about being out of work because so many other people are out
of work too’ 3
Table 3.2: ‘A person can get satisfaction out of life without having a job’ 4
Table 3.3: ‘Once you’ve got a job, it is important to hang onto it even if you do not really
like it’ 4
Table 3.4: Views about the role of paid work 5
Table 3.5: ‘If you were unemployed or are currently unemployed, how willing do you
think you would be to get training for a different job?’ 7
Table 3.6: ‘How willing would you be to move to a different area to find a job?’ 8

Table 3.7: ‘It’s worth my accepting a job with a low wage now if I can improve my
position in the long run’ 9
Table 3.8: ‘People who can’t get work deserve help in the form of social grants’ 10
Table 3.9: ‘Who do you think should mainly be responsible for ensuring that people have
enough to live on in the following circumstances?’ 11
Table 3.10: Priorities for extra government spending 12
Table 3.11: ‘Suppose the government had to choose one of the following options. Which
do you think it should choose?’ 12
Table 3.12: ‘The government should spend more money on social grants for the poor,
even if it leads to higher taxes’ 13
Table 3.13: Should social grant amounts be raised? 13
Table 3.14: ‘Most people on social grants desperately need the help’ 14
Table 3.15: ‘Many people who receive social grants do not really deserve any help’ 15
Table 3.16: ‘The Child Support Grant is too high and discourages people from
finding jobs’ 15
Table 3.17: ‘Payment of social grants by the government encourages people to stop
helping each other’ 16
Table 3.18: ‘What should a lone mother do if she has children under school age?’ 16
Table 3.19: ‘Should government provide money to help with childcare?’ 17
Figures
Figure 3.1: Work-seeking strategies of the workless 6
Figure 3.2: Obstacles to finding employment 7
Figure 3.3: Reasons for moving in last five years 8
Figure 3.4: ‘If you did not have a job, what would you live on?’ 10
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za
v

The Human Sciences Research Council is gratefully acknowledged for including the
module upon which this analysis is based within the South African Social Attitudes Survey
2006. Gemma Wright, Professor Jonathan Bradshaw, Dr Charles Meth and Benjamin

Roberts are thanked for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za
vi

CSG Child Support Grant
EPWP Expanded Public Works Programme
HSRC Human Sciences Research Council
LFS Labour Force Survey
SASAS South African Social Attitudes Survey
Stats SA Statistics South Africa
UIF Unemployment Insurance Fund
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za
1

Introduction
In September 2006, unemployment in South Africa (using the official definition) stood at
25.5% of the economically active population. If we include ‘discouraged workers’
1
the
figure is 36.2% (Stats SA, 2007). The rate of unemployment whether ‘official’ or ‘actual’
remains for all commentators unacceptably high (e.g. Meth, 2006).
For those people of working age who are not in work, there is relatively little provision
available through the social security system in the form of cash transfers. The social
insurance pillar of the South African social security system is at present very limited. The
main provision is the Unemployment Insurance Fund (UIF), which provides very limited
cover and only to those who have recently been in work (Committee of Inquiry into a
Comprehensive Social Security System for South Africa, 2002). Currently it covers fewer
than 10% of workers. The social assistance pillar though relatively extensive, nevertheless
provides nothing for able-bodied people of working age. Grants exist for low-income
disabled people (Disability Grant), children with low-income carers (Child Support Grant),

low-income older people (Older Person’s Grant), disabled children (Care Dependency
Grant), and fostered children (Foster Child Grant) (Department of Social Development,
2005). For able-bodied people of working age – the unemployed – there is a significant
hole in the safety net. Such people are provided with only limited social protection
through measures such as the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) and in dire
circumstances may be able to claim distress relief through Grant in Aid. There is plenty of
evidence that social grants going into the household are pooled to help all members
make ends meet (e.g. Moller and Ferreira, 2003) but there is no dedicated grant –
conditional or otherwise – for the support of the unemployed themselves.
Despite the absence of direct social assistance cover for unemployed people, and despite
persuasive scholarly argument to the contrary (e.g. Meth, 2004), there is continuing media
and political concern that social grants might act as a disincentive to the unemployed in
seeking and obtaining work and create a ‘dependency culture’.
In the context of these debates this study aims to obtain evidence about whether such
disincentive effects exist, that is, the extent to which social grants discourage recipients
from engaging in employment activities and foster a culture of dependency. The study
explores the views of South African citizens about paid work, the social grants system,
and the relationship between social grants and paid work.
1 See Stats SA (2006) for definitions of ‘official unemployment’ and ‘discouraged workers’.
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

2

Methodology
This analysis is based on data from a module, which was included in the Human Sciences
Research Council’s 2006 South African Social Attitudes Survey (SASAS). The questions in
the module were in part informed by a parallel qualitative project that is being
undertaken by the authors on behalf of the National Department of Social Development
under a DfID project (Surender et al., 2007).
2

The analysis in this article is largely bivariate.
3
Differences in attitudes between population
groups,
4
those defining themselves as ‘poor’, ‘just getting by’ and ‘non-poor’, and between
the unemployed and the wider population were all explored. Only differences that were
significant (p< 0.05) have been reported.
In order to distinguish the ‘poor’ from the ‘non-poor’, an investigation was undertaken
into the banded household income variable in the data. Unfortunately, nearly 25% of
respondents either refused to answer the question or reported that they didn’t know or
were uncertain of the household income. This meant that it was not possible to produce
a reliable poverty indicator using equivalised household income.
5
There is, however a
question that asks the respondent: ‘Would you say that you and your family are … 1.
Wealthy; 2. Very comfortable; 3. Reasonably comfortable; 4. Just getting along; 5. Poor; or
6. Very poor’. For analysis purposes, categories 1, 2 and 3 were combined to form ‘non-
poor’, category 4 remained as is, and categories 5 and 6 were combined to form ‘poor’.
Our category of ‘workless’ includes both the ‘official unemployed’ and ‘discouraged
workers’ and the economically inactive who are of working age (i.e. 18 to 59 years
inclusive for women, and 18 to 64 years inclusive for men). In some analyses the
unemployed (using the expanded definition) is used as an analytical category.
When examining attitudes to social grants and their relationship to work, additional
analysis was conducted to look at differences in attitude between those respondents in
households in receipt of grants and other households. Statistically significant differences
have been reported.
Since part of the aim of this analysis is to begin to assess whether the ‘poor’ or the
‘workless’ have values that are significantly different from the ‘non-poor’/‘those in work’,
and in particular to explore whether these values show that the ‘poor’/‘workless’ exhibit a

detachment from the labour market and display other characteristics of a dependency
culture, most of the analysis is undertaken using these variables.
2 This SASAS module was funded by a separate pump-priming grant from the University of Oxford.
3 Multivariate analysis of this module will be undertaken at a later stage.
4 Stats SA definition is used.
5 In due course income will be imputed for those who refused/didn’t know using Sequential Regression Multiple
Imputation. See
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za
3

Findings
3.1 The importance of work
The dependency culture thesis (in simplified form) is predicated on the emergence of
communities where the adults have little or no attachment to the labour market, where
paid work is not valued and where individuals are content, in the long term, to derive
their income from state transfers (Mead, 1992; Murray, 1984; Murray, 1996). A ‘culture of
dependency’ emerges, it is argued, and this is transmitted intergenerationally. Children, it
is hypothesised, see no working role models and observe a contented reliance on state
transfers and so inherit this tendency to ‘dependency’.
The individuals exhibiting the dependency culture are said to be a moral ‘underclass’
(Auletta, 1982; Murray, 1984; Murray, 1986). In the US, where these notions re-emerged
6

in the 1980s, the existence of an underclass with different values has been refuted by a
considerable weight of evidence (Jencks, 1992; Jencks and Pederson, 1991). In the UK,
the evidence is similarly weighted against any significant lack of attachment of the
unemployed to the labour market (Gallie, 1988); or the emergence of a dependency
culture (Morris, 1995; Walker, 1996). Earlier work had refuted the idea of intergenerational
transmission of negative values relating to motivation to work (Brown and Madge, 1982;
Rutter and Madge, 1976).

In order to explore issues surrounding the dependency culture thesis in a South African
context it is a useful starting point to consider the extent to which paid work is valued
across South African society.
Table 3.1: ‘I feel alright about being out of work because so many other people are out of work too’
African Coloured Indian/Asian White All
Strongly agree/Agree 11.4% 19.4% 10.8% 8.9% 11.8%
Neither 0.7% 14.3% 0.4% 9.2% 1.7%
Disagree/Strongly disagree 87.6% 65.1% 86.0% 75.6% 86.0%
Undecided 0.3% 1.2% 2.8% 6.4% 0.6%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: SASAS 2006, Group analysed: Unemployed (by population group)
In the first instance we examined the extent to which paid work conferred dignity on
those in employment. In response to the statement ‘A person has to have a job to have
dignity’, the majority – 67% – either agreed strongly (26.5%) or agreed (40.6%). Of the
22% who disagreed, there were no significant differences by population group. We might
have expected that those without jobs having adapted to their circumstances may have
held differing views. However, we did not find that the workless
7
had significantly
different views than the non-workless. All those not in paid work were asked to comment
6 The notions of ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ poor have a much older history dating back at least to the Elizabethan
poor law in England (1605) but probably to various laws enacted in the 14
th
century following the Black Death, e.g.
Statute of Labourers, 1388.
7 These are respondents of working age (men: 18 to 64 years; women: 18 to 59 years) who indicated that they were
‘not working for pay’. They will therefore include the ‘official’ unemployed, the economically inactive and the
discouraged workless.
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za


4
on the proposition that ‘I feel alright about being out of work because so many other
people are out of work too’. Notably, those without jobs were adamant that they did not
feel adjusted to the position of being without a job.
As can be see from Table 3.1, 86% of the unemployed disagreed with the proposition.
There were significant differences between population groups with 87.6% of African
people disagreeing compared with 65.1% of the coloured population and 75.6% of the
white population.
8

All unemployed people agreed or strongly agreed (86%) that they got very bored having
no work to do. This view was most apparent among Africans (87.6%) and weakest among
the white group (64.4%).
Those in paid work were specifically asked to comment on statements relating to their
view of work and to the role of work as an agent of social integration. First, in response
to the statement ‘a person can get satisfaction out of life without having a job’ 57.1%
strongly disagreed or disagreed (Table 3.2). Significantly, those regarding themselves as
‘poor’ or who were ‘just getting by’ disagreed more strongly than the ‘non-poor’.
Table 3.2: ‘A person can get satisfaction out of life without having a job’
Non-poor Just get by Poor All
Strongly agree/Agree 33.7% 30.3% 30.1% 31.3%
Neither 16.2% 8.1% 8.8% 10.8%
Strongly disagree/Disagree 49.6% 61.3% 59.8% 57.1%
Undecided 0.5% 0.5% 1.4% 0.8%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: SASAS 2006, Group analysed: All respondents (by self-assessed poverty)
Second, a very high percentage of people working for pay felt it was important to ‘hang
on to a job’ even if they didn’t like it (Table 3.3):
Table 3.3: ‘Once you’ve got a job, it is important to hang onto it even if you do not really like it’
Non-poor Just get by Poor All

Strongly agree/Agree 72.6% 80.1% 82.4% 78.4%
Neither 13.2% 8.2% 7.7% 9.6%
Strongly disagree/Disagree 13.8% 11.3% 9.5% 11.5%
Undecided 0.5% 0.5% 0.4% 0.5%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: SASAS 2006, Group analysed: All respondents (by self-assessed poverty)
The ‘non-poor’ population were least likely to agree (strongly or otherwise) with the
sentiment but nevertheless a large majority (72.6%) still held the view. The poor appeared
to demonstrate a greater attachment to the labour market (judged by this indicator): 82.4%
8 Further analysis will be undertaken to explore the group who strongly agreed/agreed to this statement. This group
may be capturing people who are experiencing extreme alienation. Conversely it may be capturing people who have
become resigned to the lack of any prospect of obtaining a job.
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za
5

thought it was important to hang on to a job even if you didn’t like it.
9
And relatively few
poor people would leave a job they didn’t like unless they had another job to go to.
Overall 67.4% of respondents disagreed or disagreed strongly with the statement ‘If I did
not like a job, I would leave, even if there were no other job to go to’ whereas only
21.7% agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.
Third, those in work were given a series of statements to consider, all relating to the social
integration nature of work: These were:
‘I work because working is the normal thing to do’

‘I work because it gives me a sense of belonging to the community’

‘I work because in my job I meet people and don’t feel so isolated’
We see from Table 3.4 that in all these areas, there is agreement about the notion that

work promotes integration and overcomes isolation (Barry, 1998; Levitas, 2005). Seventy
per cent agreed (or strongly agreed) that they regarded working as the normal thing to
do, 65.6% saw it as giving a sense of belonging to the community, and nearly 64% saw its
role as overcoming social isolation.
Table 3.4: Views about the role of paid work
‘Normal’ ‘Belonging’ ‘No isolation’
Strongly agree 25.6% 21.4% 19.2%
Agree 45.1% 44.2% 44.7%
Neither 4.6% 11.5% 13.5%
Disagree 21.7% 19.5% 18.0%
Strongly disagree 3.1% 3.5% 4.5%
Undecided 25.6% 0.0% 0.2%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
The feeling that work is the normal thing to do was highest amongst the Indian/Asian
and the coloured community with 86.8% and 83.9% respectively agreeing or strongly
agreeing with the proposition. On the other hand, the social integration role of work was
stressed most by Africans, amongst whom nearly 69% agreed or strongly agreed that work
gave them a sense of belonging to the community whereas only 57% of the white group
held these views. There were no significant differences between the ‘poor’ and the ‘non-
poor’ on any of these issues.
3.2 Seeking employment
Overall 81% of unemployed respondents in the survey stated that they were looking for
work. This is much higher than the Labour Force Survey (LFS) percentage who say they
9 This may reflect the fact that people with higher skills can afford to be less ‘dependent’ on a particular job.
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

6
are looking for work (around 53% of the total unemployed). This is probably explained
by the somewhat weaker test in SASAS than in the LFS.
10

It is instructive to examine the work-seeking initiatives taken by those who state they are
looking for work. The strategies are shown in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1: Work-seeking strategies of the workless
The largest percentage used social networks to find work (over 50%) while a large
percentage also went from door to door.
The majority of people in paid work expressed an intention to immediately look for work
if they lost their job (90%). However, the unemployed were pessimistic about the outlook
with 61% who thought that there was no real chance of them getting a job in the area.
Given the importance attached to being in work, it is important to examine the barriers
the workless experience in moving into work.
As Figure 3.2 shows, for those stating that they are seeking work the largest perceived
obstacle to employment was that there were no or too few jobs available.
11
10 In SASAS those not currently working for pay were asked ‘Do you continuously look for work?’, whereas in the LFS
respondents are asked ‘During the past four weeks, has …… taken any action a) to look for any kind of work b) to
start any kind of business?’.
11 This supports findings from the LFS, September 2006 where, of 4.4 million officially unemployed, 3.8 million said the
main reason that they were not working was because they could not find any work and 250 000 said they did not have
the skills or qualifications (Stats SA, 2007: 47).
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za
7

Figure 3.2: Obstacles to finding employment
The greatest obstacle to finding employment (no/few jobs available) is a ‘demand side’
factor that will require macro-economic policy shifts to make an impact. Other reasons
include ‘supply side’ factors, and give pointers to possible ‘supply side’ interventions.
Thus 20.7% gave ‘not enough qualifications’ and 12.4% gave ‘not enough relevant
experience’ as reasons for not getting a job. These suggest the importance of putting in
place effective training programmes. The data suggest that there was a great willingness
to train to get the necessary skills and this was particularly evident within the African

community (Table 3.5).
Table 3.5: ‘If you were unemployed or are currently unemployed, how willing do you think you
would be to get training for a different job?’
African Coloured Indian/Asian White All
Very willing 60.3% 59.3% 64.3% 58.8% 60.1%
Quite willing 20.2% 13.9% 13.6% 15.5% 18.9%
Not willing 15.0% 24.2% 19.7% 21.3% 16.7%
Undecided 4.5% 2.6% 2.5% 4.5% 4.3%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: SASAS 2006, Group analysed: All respondents (by population group)
There were no significant differences between the poor and non-poor or between the
workless and non-workless.
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

8
Though there is relatively little that individuals can do to affect ‘demand side’ factors
associated with wider macroeconomic issues, one thing they can do is to move in order
to find work. Looking at just the unemployed population (Table 3.6), over 81% of the
African population would be very or quite willing to move to find work. A smaller
percentage of other population groups (between 52% and 54%) would be prepared to do
so.
Table 3.6: ‘How willing would you be to move to a different area to find a job?’
African Coloured Indian/Asian White All
Very willing 49.9% 35.9% 36.9% 33.9% 48.4%
Quite willing 31.5% 16.4% 15.5% 19.9% 30.0%
Not willing 16.9% 43.3% 45.2% 34.0% 19.3%
Undecided 1.8% 4.3% 2.4% 12.1% 2.3%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: SASAS 2006, Group analysed: Unemployed respondents (by population group)
Looking at this in another way, we asked whether any of the respondents had moved to

another province or municipality within the last five years. Of the 17% who had, the
reasons for moving were varied but 61% moved to find work (Figure 3.3).
Figure 3.3: Reasons for moving in last five years
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za
9

We cannot directly ascertain from the data whether the group who moved to find work
succeeded in doing so. However, we can look at those who moved to find work and
look at their current employment status. If we do so, we find that 46.5% are currently
employed or in self-employment (full- or part-time) whereas 44.2% are unemployed and
looking for work, with a further 2.5% unemployed and not looking for work. It appears
then that migration was a successful strategy in work search for around half of those who
moved.
In terms of type of earnings from a job, the primary expectation was that pay would
cover basic essentials – 95% of those working for pay said they worked in order that they
could pay for basic essentials such as food, rent and children’s education. Seventy per
cent said they also worked to cover ‘extras’. However, there was no aversion to taking a
low-wage job as a first step up the ladder (Table 3.7):
Table 3.7: ‘It’s worth my accepting a job with a low wage now if I can improve my position in the
long run’
Non-poor Just get by Poor All
Strongly agree/Agree 80.0% 82.1% 83.4% 81.8%
Neither 6.0% 8.8% 6.4% 7.2%
Strongly disagree/Disagree 13.1% 8.0% 8.6% 9.8%
Undecided 0.9% 1.2% 1.6% 1.2%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: SASAS 2006, Group analysed: All respondents (by self-assessed poverty)
The ‘poor’ were even more strongly in agreement with this sentiment than the other
groups with 83.4% either agreeing or strongly agreeing (cf. ‘non-poor’ 80%).
3.3 What happens if you lose your job?

As previously noted, the current social grants system does not provide direct help to the
unemployed. This fact is clearly well known and responses to the question ‘If you did not
have a job, what would you live on?’ (see Figure 3.4) are conditioned accordingly.
Relatively small percentages of respondents (4.1% overall) indicate that they would live
on social grants. The figure was higher amongst the poor (11.6%). Presumably such
respondents anticipate that they would obtain financial support from those family
members who were in receipt of grants. It is interesting (and logical) that savings should
be more important for the non-poor than the poor (21.6% v 10%). Savings are also more
significant for Indian/Asian and white groups. For almost all groups ‘trying to earn a
living informally from home’ was the way they expected to make ends meet.
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

10
Figure 3.4: ‘If you did not have a job, what would you live on?’
3.4 Grants for unemployed people
As it is well known that the social grants system doesn’t extend to the unemployed, we
explored whether there was any evidence of support for extending the cover of the social
assistance scheme? As Table 3.8 indicates, we found that there was indeed widespread
popular support for the introduction of such support.
Table 3.8: ‘People who can’t get work deserve help in the form of social grants’
Non-poor Just get by Poor Unemployed All
Strongly agree/Agree 66.4% 73.6% 83.9% 78.9% 74.4%
Neither 18.6% 10.6% 5.4% 7.6% 11.5%
Strongly disagree/
Disagree
14.8% 14.4% 10.2% 12.2% 13.3%
Undecided 0.3% 1.4% 0.6% 1.4% 0.8%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: SASAS 2006, Groups analysed: All respondents (by self-assessed poverty) and unemployed respondents (as a subset)
As might be expected, support was strongest among the poor with nearly 83.9% agreeing

or strongly agreeing with the proposition. Support was weakest among the ‘non-poor’
(66.4%) but there was a clear majority in favour. The unemployed themselves also gave
significant support for the proposition (78.9%).
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za
11

3.5 Support for the state’s role in income maintenance/
comprehensive social security
Respondents were asked who should support employed people who either became sick
or who lost their jobs through retrenchment. They were also asked who should support
those not working where there was no recent employment or where the unemployed
person became sick. From Table 3.9 we can see that the government is viewed as having
major responsibility in each of the scenarios posited except retrenchment where the
employer was viewed as playing a major role. For those not working who become sick,
the responsibility is viewed as the government’s. Almost two-thirds of the population
thought that the government had primary responsibility, even for those with no recent
employment. In an indirect way, this suggests popular support for some help either
through social assistance or social insurance for the unemployed. Amongst the poor this
figure rises to 73%.
There was some support for the importance of individual responsibility in circumstances
of unemployment or sickness, in particular where people have no recent employment.
Overall 28.7% think the responsibility for ensuring that the group with no recent
employment have enough to live on lies with the group members themselves or their
family. This is most evident among the ‘non-poor’ (35.2%) and the white population
group (35.4%).
Table 3.9: ‘Who do you think should mainly be responsible for ensuring that people have enough
to live on in the following circumstances?’
Where an
employed person
becomes sick

Where an
employed person
is retrenched
Where someone
not working
becomes sick
Where someone
has no recent
employment
Mainly the
government
47.5% 36.3% 73.2% 62.4%
Mainly person’s
employer
37.6% 46.1% - -
Mainly the person and
his/her family
11.9% 15.4% 22.6% 28.7%
None of the above 1.0% 0.9% 1.5% 3.6%
Undecided 1.9% 1.4% 2.7% 5.3%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: SASAS 2006, Group analysed: All respondents
3.6 Social grants as a government priority
Before turning to look in more detail at respondents’ views on the existing social grants
scheme, it is worth looking at people’s perceptions of government spending priorities and
the extent to which they support ‘welfare state-related’
12
spending in general and social
assistance spending in particular. Respondents were given a list of government spending
headings and were asked to give their two highest priorities for extra spending.

Conflating the two priorities the following table (Table 3.10 presents the results.)
12 For ‘welfare state’ we use the meaning ascribed by Titmuss (1950) and Gough and Wood (2006) – that is state-led
arrangements for income maintenance, health, education and housing, which promote the well-being of citizens.
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

12
Table 3.10: Priorities for extra government spending
Non-poor Just get by poor All
Education 60.3% 53.3% 50.5% 54.6%
Health 51.8%
Housing 22.5% 29.8% 38.1% 30.0%
Social grants 11.8% 22.1% 26.0% 20.0%
Roads 12.6%
Police 14.2% 8.5% 5.7% 9.4%
Help for industry 7.1%
Transport 4.7%
Defence 3.7%
Source: SASAS 2006, Group analysed: All respondents (by self-assessed poverty)
Note: Empty cells indicate that there is no significant difference between those classified as non-poor, just getting by and poor
for the government spending category in question. And since this is a multiple response table, the columns add up to more
than 100%. The responses capture the two most important government spending priorities that were reported by each
respondent.
Education was important for all groups but exceeded 60% for the ‘non-poor’. Extra
Spending on health was supported by nearly 52% with no statistically significant difference
between groups. Housing was most important for the ‘poor’. Extra spending on social
grants was supported especially by the ‘poor’ (26.0%) and those who ‘just get by’ (22.1%)
and received least support among the non-poor (11.8%). Conversely, extra spending on
police was not highly prioritised by the poor (5.7%) compared with the non-poor (14.2%).
In respect of population group, differences with regard to prioritising spending on police
were more marked for both the white and coloured groups (over 20%). This appears to be

a Western Cape phenomenon: 25.6% of Western Cape residents prioritised extra spending
on police – all other provinces were approximately 8% or below except Gauteng (12.2%).
This general support for what we have described as ‘welfare state spending’ is supported
by raising money through taxes (Table 3.11):
Table 3.11: ‘Suppose the government had to choose one of the following options. Which do you
think it should choose?’
Working for pay Not working* All
Reduce tax and spend less on health,
education and social grants
9.6% 13.4% 11.7%
Keep tax as is and spend same on health,
education and social grants
45.6% 37.8% 41.3%
Increase tax and spend more on health,
education and social grants
44.8% 48.8% 47.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: SASAS 2006, Group analysed: All respondents (by ‘working for pay’)
Note: * A combination of unemployed, economically inactive, and retired persons, most of whom will not be paying any
direct taxes.
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za
13

Even among those currently working for pay there was a considerable amount of support
for increasing taxes to enable more welfare spending (44.8%) – nearly as much support
as from those not working (48.8%). There was little support for reducing the tax burden
by cutting social welfare spending.
3.7 Are social grants enough to live on?
There was also general agreement about the need for government to spend more money
on social grants for the poor even if it means higher taxes (Table 3.12). Although the

‘non-poor’ group are slightly more reluctant to support this, 59.4% agreed. Nearly 63% of
those in work (and either actually paying tax – or at least closest to the prospect of
paying tax) supported the proposition. If we look at those whose households are
currently receiving grants, 71.5% agree or strongly agree with the proposition.
Table 3.12: ‘The government should spend more money on social grants for the poor, even if it
leads to higher taxes’
Non-
poor
Just
get by
Poor
Household
in receipt of
grants
Unemployed
Working
for pay
All
Strongly agree/
Agree
59.4% 65.0% 73.8% 71.5% 71.0% 62.6% 65.9%
Neither 12.3% 12.3% 6.4% 9.1% 7.8% 11.9% 10.6%
Strongly disagree/
Disagree
26.7% 21.7% 14.9% 16.9% 18.2% 24.3% 21.1%
Undecided 1.6% 1.0% 4.9% 2.4% 3.0% 1.2% 2.4%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: SASAS 2006, Groups analysed: All respondents (by self-assessed poverty); those living in households in receipt of social
grants (as a sub group); the unemployed (as a sub group); and those working for pay (as a sub group)
When couched in support for particular grants, there is more support for raising the level

of grants even if it means higher taxes (Table 3.13)
13
.
Table 3.13: Should social grant amounts be raised?
Child Support
Grant
Disability Grant
Foster
Child
Grant
Old Age
Grant
Raise a lot 40.4% 39.5% 38.3% 47.7%
Raise a little 30.9% 34.0% 33.6% 29.5%
Keep the same 21.5% 24.1% 24.8% 21.2%
Reduce a little 2.2% 0.9% 1.5% 0.6%
Reduce a lot 2.8% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1%
Undecided 2.2% 1.4% 1.7% 0.9%
Source: SASAS 2006, Group analysed: All respondents
13 The actual question was: ‘Some people think that government should raise the level of social grants, while
other people disagree. Please say whether you would like to see the level of the [… grant] raised, kept the same
or reduced. Remember that if you want the level to be raised, this would probably mean that you would have
to pay more tax. If you want the level to be reduced this would probably mean paying less tax’.
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

14
There are no significant differences in views about raising the Disability and Old Age
Grants between those who are working and those who are not. However, in the case of
the Child Support Grant (CSG), 71.3% of the overall population would raise the amount
either a little or a lot, but only 65.6% of those in work would do so. Similarly, for the

Foster Child Grant, nearly 72% of the overall respondents would raise the amount either a
little or a lot, but only 68% of those working were so inclined.
3.8 Deserving or undeserving poor? A culture of
welfare dependency?
In order to explore general attitudes to social grants we asked all respondents about their
view of whether claimants were ‘deserving’ or not. A clear view emerges in support of
the proposition that most people receiving grants desperately need the help (Table 3.14).
Poor and non-poor, all population groups, and both those working and those not
working, strongly support this view. Although the differences between these groups are
statistically significant, they are not great and do not detract from the main message.
Table 3.14: ‘Most people on social grants desperately need the help’
Non-
poor
Just get
by
Poor
Household
in receipt of
grants*
Working
for pay
Unemployed All
Strongly agree/
Agree
76.1% 82.9% 88.3% 84.9% 83.8% 84.2% 82.3%
Neither 13.5% 11.6% 6.8% 10.0% 9.3% 9.3% 10.8%
Disagree/
Strongly
Disagree
7.0% 5.0% 4.1% 4.1% 5.3% 5.9% 5.5%

Undecided 6.4% 4.4% 4.0% 1.1% 1.6% 0.6% 1.5%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: SASAS 2006, Groups analysed: All respondents (by self-assessed poverty); those living in households in receipt of social
grants (as a sub group); the unemployed (as a sub group); and those working for pay (as a sub group)
Note: * Other research suggests that this is a common phenomenon, i.e. where recipients regard themselves as deserving but
know of people whom they regard as not deserving, and is likely to be fuelled by the anti-fraud campaigns that are currently
underway (Surender et al., 2007).
Despite the general view that most people receiving grants are in need, there are some
who think that grant recipients do not deserve help (Table 3.15). In order to explore
these views further we asked whether people agreed with the statement that ‘many
people who receive social grants do not really deserve any help’.
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za
15

Table 3.15: ‘Many people who receive social grants do not really deserve any help’
Non-poor Just get by Poor
Household in
receipt of
grants
15
White All
Strongly agree/Agree 29.9% 24.9% 27.1%
24.7%
2
31.9% 27.2%
Neither 20.4% 14.8% 10.6% 13.5% 23.8% 15.3%
Disagree/ Strongly
disagree
41.4% 58.2% 59.0% 58.6% 29.2% 53.2%
Undecided 8.3% 2.0% 3.3% 3.2% 15.2% 4.4%

Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: SASAS 2006, Groups analysed: All respondents (by self-assessed poverty); those living in households in receipt of social
grants (as a sub group); and all respondents (by population group – white)
For all population groups except the white group, there was a greater proportion
disagreeing with the proposition than agreeing with it. There were no significant
differences between those in work and those not in work.
3.9 Relationship between work and grants
As outlined above, part of the ‘dependency culture thesis’ is that receipt of social grants
stifle the incentive to work. In South Africa, while there is no social assistance for able-
bodied people of working age, carers of children under 14 years are entitled to a CSG for
their children if their income is low. There has, however, been some speculation that
CSGs discourage work-seeking among the recipients. We accordingly asked respondents
for their views about whether specifically the CSG is too high and discourages job
seeking.
Table 3.16: ‘The Child Support Grant is too high and discourages people from finding jobs’
Non-poor Just get by Poor All
Strongly agree/Agree 16.5% 18.3% 13.0% 16.2%
Neither 16.6% 9.9% 8.1% 11.5%
Strongly disagree/Disagree 64.7% 70.6% 76.6% 70.6%
Undecided 2.3% 1.2% 2.2% 1.8%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: SASAS 2006, Group analysed: All respondents (by self-assessed poverty)
There was little support for this proposition – only 13% of the ‘poor’, 18.3% of the ‘just
getting by’, and 16.5% of the ‘non-poor’ either agreed or strongly agreed with the
proposition. On the other hand, 70.6% of all groups either disagreed or strongly disagreed
with the proposition. Responses ranged from 76.6% (‘poor’) to 64.7% (‘non-poor’). The
responses of those where a CSG was received in the household were not significantly
different from households where no CSG was in payment.
We also asked those not working for pay (that is the unemployed, economically inactive,
and retired population) whether they consider themselves better off claiming grants than

working. This group were adamant in their rejection of the assertion that it is not worth
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

16
them working – 67.1% disagreed with the proposition. When considering the unemployed
alone, this figure rises to 75.3%. These data, therefore, provide little evidence of the
existence of a ‘dependency culture’ among the workless.
Another possible consequence of government paying social assistance could be that it
discourages people from helping each other. As we can see from Table 3.17, while this
view has some support (30.5% agreeing or strongly agreeing), there were considerably
higher percentages disagreeing – ranging from 52.5% for the ‘non-poor’ through to 59.1%
for the ‘poor’.
Table 3.17: ‘Payment of social grants by the government encourages people to stop helping each
other’
Non-poor Just get by Poor All
Strongly agree/Agree 30.4% 31.9% 28.9% 30.5%
Neither 12.1% 7.9% 9.4% 9.7%
Disagree/Strongly disagree 52.6% 57.2% 59.1% 56.3%
Undecided 4.9% 3.0% 2.6% 3.5%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: SASAS 2006, Group analysed: All respondents (by self-assessed poverty)
3.10 Lone parents
According to De Koker et al. (2006) around 94% of the adult recipients of a CSG are
women. Their average age is 36 years and approximately 56% are lone parents (either
single, never married (52%) or divorced/separated (4%)). For the under-25s the
percentage of lone parents rises to around 84%. There is considerable international debate
as to whether a lone parent should seek paid work or stay at home to look after the
children. In general, the debate becomes more intense when applied to pre-school
children. The views range between those who think there should be an obligation for a
lone mother to work in order to economically support her children, those who think

there should be an obligation for single parents to look after very young children, and
those who think it should be up to the lone parent herself to decide (see Millar and
Rowlingson (2001) for a discussion on these positions). To explore this in the South
African context we asked ‘What should a lone mother do if she has children under school
age?’
Table 3.18: ‘What should a lone mother do if she has children under school age?’
African Coloured
Indian
Asian
White
Lone
mothers
All
Duty to work 64.6% 51.6% 60.8% 74.5% 69.2% 64.4%
Duty to care 18.3% 17.8% 15.0% 6.7% 19.9% 16.8%
She should
choose
15.3% 28.1% 21.9% 17.7% 10.1% 16.9%
Undecided 1.8% 2.5% 2.4% 1.2% 0.9% 1.8%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za
17

As Table 3.18 shows, there are significant population group differences. It is notable that
the duty to work is supported by all population groups, but is greatest for the white
group and weakest for the coloured group, who give the strongest support for a woman’s
right to choose. There are much smaller differences between the poor and the non-poor.
Lone mothers themselves gave clear support for the duty to work. A further module has
been included in SASAS 2007 to explore this issue in more detail.
What is the position on child care? Respondents were asked whether government should

provide help with childcare if the single mother did go out to work. In effect, should
provision of free childcare be part of the ‘social wage’?
Table 3.19: ‘Should government provide money to help with childcare?’
African Coloured
Indian
Asian
White
Lone
mothers
All
Strongly agree/Agree 74.7% 82.5% 77.6% 72.9% 77.7% 75.3%
Neither 10.6% 9.6% 8.0% 13.4% 7.9% 10.8%
Disagree/Strongly
disagree
12.9% 5.7% 11.7% 10.7% 13.0% 11.9%
Undecided 1.8% 2.1% 2.7% 3.0% 1.4% 2.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: SASAS 2006, Group analysed: Unemployed (by population group)
All groups – and especially lone mothers themselves – strongly support the proposition
that government should assist with the provision of childcare for working lone mothers.
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

18

Conclusion
Recent concerns about potential unintended effects of the current grant system in South
Africa, in particular whether cash transfers undermine work motivation and create
dependency, do not appear to be supported by the results of this study. The key findings
from the analysis show that both those in and out of work placed a high value on paid
work and all groups agreed that paid work promotes dignity. Despite high levels of

structural unemployment, the unemployed could not get used to the idea that being out
of work was ‘normal’ and a very high percentage stated that they felt bored when not in
work. All respondents in work felt that it was the normal thing to do, that it made them
feel part of the community, and helped prevent social isolation. They believed that it was
important to keep a job even if they didn’t really like it.
High percentages of the unemployed stated that they were looking for work – even
higher than the LFS (2006) results, where the test is more stringent (i.e. those who have
looked for work in the past seven days). A variety of job search strategies were
employed, but most people used informal networks of relatives and friends or arguably
less effective strategies such as going door to door. Virtually no one used employment
agencies provided by either the state or private sector. This is supported by the findings
of a recent qualitative study (Surender et al., 2007), which found that unaffordable
registration fees, various administrative requirements and onerous deductions from wages
all mitigated against people’s use of employment agencies. This is an important message
for the Department of Labour whose Centres were perceived by many to be a barrier
rather than an aid to job searches.
Despite the unequivocal importance attached to work, unemployed respondents were
pessimistic about the chances of finding work; the most important reason given was that
there are simply no jobs available. To address this would require a shift in
macroeconomic policy – perhaps a more interventionist approach to job creation rather
than a belief that market-led economic growth will inevitably ‘trickle down’ to the
unemployed. However, there was a significant minority of respondents in this study who
felt under-skilled or under-experienced. Both of these groups could be assisted by high-
quality training, which prepares people for the kinds of jobs now becoming available
such as those in the area of new technology. A high percentage of the unemployed
expressed a willingness to train.
Other groups pointed to the high cost of transport for both job search and getting to
work as a significant barrier to employment. An integrated transport policy that provides
free or subsidised transport for the unemployed might be advisable. A small percentage
pointed to lack of child care. The Early Childhood Development Centres or crèches

(under the Expanded Public Works Programme) are a good start but should be increased
in capacity and located where they are most needed, perhaps using the Indices of
Deprivation (see Noble et al., 2006). Crèches would also be a source of employment for
local people. These findings can help inform debates initiated by the Department of
Social Development in its discussion document ‘Linking Social Grant Beneficiaries to
Poverty Alleviation and Economic Activity’ (Department of Social Development, 2006).
The unemployed were extremely motivated to get work. The majority (especially
Africans) would be willing to relocate in order to find work. Indeed, a proportion had
relocated in the past five years, and the main reason for this was to find work. Looking at
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za
19

those who had moved, nearly half were now in paid work. Additionally it was interesting
to note that people were willing to take a low-paid job if it was a stepping stone to
something better, demonstrating the desire to enter the labour market even with low pay.
As we have noted there are no social grants for adults of working age who are not
disabled. The new proposed strengthening of the social insurance pillar of the
comprehensive social security system will not help the majority of unemployed people as
they will not have made appropriate contributions. Only an extension to the first pillar
will suffice, either by way of social grants or through some sort of Basic Income Grant.
Extension of the grant system to cover all adults of working age will help eradicate the
moral hazard associated with the current Disability Grant. If people get better and can’t
find work they would continue to receive state support (Natrass 2006; Whitworth and
Noble, forthcoming).
We asked some questions about possible forms of income maintenance for the
unemployed. Respondents were well aware that the social grants system is not
comprehensive and that there is no cover for unemployed people. Subsequently, most
felt that the only way for the unemployed to get by was to informally earn a living from
home. However, when asked whether there should be support through the grants system
for unemployed people, the majority of respondents were in favour of such a policy. This

lends popular support to Minister Skweyiya who, after his recent trip to Norway, said: ‘We
are encouraged by the Nordic principle that while a comprehensive social security system
is too expensive, it is also too expensive not to have it, given its ability to reduce poverty
and create safety nets and stable families and communities’.
14

Where social assistance for unemployed adults exists internationally, it is often associated
with a requirement for the recipient to demonstrate that she or he is seeking work.
However, in the South African context, given the demonstrated strong attachment to the
labour market of unemployed people and the current absence of employment
opportunities for all those who would like to work, an explicit requirement of this sort
does not seem to be necessary or appropriate.
15

In conclusion, it appears that the findings from this research refute any notion of a
dependency culture amongst South Africans who live in households that receive grants.
There is neither support for the proposition that receipt of CSGs discourages people from
finding work, nor that people feel better off claiming grants rather than working. It is
evident that the attitudes of the poor and those in receipt of grants are not different from
other respondents and all respondents demonstrated a strong commitment to work. The
most important factors in reducing people’s chances of finding employment are perceived
to be linked to the structural conditions of the labour market and the wider economy
rather than the motivational characteristics of the unemployed and the arrangements of
the grant system.
14 Press release issued by the Department of Social Development, 14 March 2007.
15 Additionally, the administrative burden imposed on employers to provide evidence that people had sought work at
their institutions would be considerable.
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za