Black Sash hosted a critical discussion this week in Cape Town examining the future of social grants in South Africa, a nation grappling with persistently high unemployment. The event, part of the organisation's 70th anniversary celebrations, delved into the potential consequences of withdrawing social assistance in a context marked by severe youth unemployment, widespread food insecurity, and growing inequality. Activists, economists, and labour leaders convened to debate what happens to the millions reliant on these grants as South Africa's economy struggles to generate sufficient jobs.

The scale of dependency on social welfare is underscored by recent data from Statistics South Africa (StatsSA). The General Household Survey indicated a dramatic rise in social grant recipients, from approximately 13% of the population in 2003 to 31% in 2019, further surging to 40% by 2024. This sharp increase is largely attributed to the introduction of the special Covid-19 Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant. Compounding this, StatsSA reported an official unemployment rate of about 33% in the first quarter of 2025, while the expanded unemployment rate, which includes discouraged job seekers, stood at a staggering 43%.

Rachel Bukasa, Executive Director of Black Sash, passionately argued that social grants are not a luxury but an indispensable response to the dire realities of high unemployment and poverty. "Grants are an important stop-gap to the poverty and unemployment that exists," Bukasa stated. She countered the common misconception that grants disincentivize work, asserting, "When we call for grants, it's in the absence of the jobs that the government has promised year after year." While acknowledging job creation as the ultimate objective, Bukasa stressed that the current economic landscape fails to provide enough opportunities. She dismissed claims that grants foster dependency, instead characterizing them as a vital safety net while the government endeavors to improve the job market.

Tony Ehrenreich of COSATU aligned with Bukasa's position, emphasizing that the alternative to state-provided social support is widespread hunger and desperation. "Grants are only a requirement when the market has failed," Ehrenreich explained. "If the market is perfect there will be no need for grants, but the market is not perfect so we need to take care of people in the interim ... It's not a question of jobs or grants. It's both." He contended that the high unemployment figures and deepening inequality are clear indicators of a failing economic system, questioning the justice of forcing the poor to bear the consequences of failures by the affluent and policymakers.

Offering a contrasting economic perspective, political economist Phumlani Majozi raised serious concerns about the fiscal sustainability of the extensive grant system. Majozi pointed out, "In our budget, the social grant expenditure is massive. 65% of our expenditure goes towards social grants, subsidised housing etc ... Fiscally, it's not something that is manageable." He strongly criticized the government for what he perceived as a lack of a coherent vision and actionable plans for stimulating economic growth and job creation. "Where is the plan from the president and his cabinet to say by a certain year these are the targets ... It doesn't seem like Enoch Godongwana has a plan," Majozi remarked.

Majozi further posited that the entrenched grant system might inadvertently discourage the government from undertaking essential policy reforms aimed at fostering economic growth. "There will be no incentive for government to change and pursue policies to encourage economic growth if our first argument is that we need social grants," he argued, suggesting a potential conflict between immediate welfare needs and long-term economic strategy.

In a direct rebuttal to Majozi's concerns about dependency and fiscal burden, Rachel Bukasa reasserted that social security is a constitutionally protected right, not a discretionary favour granted by the government. "Social assistance is protected by the Constitution. So we need to do away with the notion that it's a favour the government is doing," she declared. Bukasa concluded that the significant and growing need for social protection is, in fact, a direct reflection of the "government's inability to deliver on job creation," placing the onus back on the state to address the root causes of unemployment and poverty.