Skip to main content
SA Policy Space

Inclusive Growth Spending Review — Reprioritising Social Grants vs. Employment

Government CapacityProposedMedium TermRaised 6× in committeeFinance Standing Committee

Theme: Fiscal policy / social expenditure

First raisedMay 2023Last discussedAug 20266 meetings on the record ↓
Generate BriefCompareFeasibility Matrix

Reform at a glance

What changes
Inclusive Growth Spending Review — Reprioritising Social Grants vs. Employment
Responsible actor (recorded)
National Treasury / Department of Social Development / DPSA / DSBD
Recorded status
Proposed — editorial assessment.
Milestone described by this status
Status scope has not yet been independently documented; it may cover only part of this reform.
Next documented milestone
Next milestone not yet documented
Compare shortlist (0/3)
Back to ideas
On this page

Description

South Africa spends approximately R280 billion annually on social grants (2025/26), including the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant (R110 per day for 9 million recipients), child support grants (R530 per month for 13 million children), old age pensions, and disability grants. The fiscal cost of the SRD grant alone—introduced as a COVID-19 measure in 2020 and retained due to mass unemployment—is R35 billion per year. The Inclusive Growth Spending Review, proposed in the 2024 Budget and commissioned within the Medium-Term Expenditure Framework process, evaluates whether the social protection budget is optimally structured to simultaneously reduce poverty (short-term) and unemployment (long-term). Specifically: could a portion of the SRD grant budget be redirected to employment programmes (EPWP, Jobs Fund) without leaving vulnerable people worse off? The evidence from international social protection research suggests that conditionality (linking grants to training or job search) works in countries with functioning labour markets but has negligible effects in high-unemployment contexts. The textbook (Chapter 8) notes that South Africa's grant system is fiscally large, well-targeted, and poverty-reducing but has no direct channel to labour market activation. The MTBPS 2025 commits to resolving the SRD grant's legal status by 2026/27.

Assessment

Growth Impact4/5
Feasibility2/5

Responsible: National Treasury / Department of Social Development / DPSA / DSBD

Feasibility Assessment

Q4 2025 QLFS: official unemployment rate 31.4% (narrow definition, unchanged from Q3 2025); youth unemployment (15–34) at 58.5%; expanded unemployment rate (including discouraged workers) approximately 42.5%. Labour force participation rate: 56.3%. The end of load-shedding has supported services sector employment recovery, but manufacturing employment continues to contract — partly reflecting the automotive export shock (US tariffs), CTFL import competition, and ongoing capital deepening in mining. The SRD grant (R370/month) covers approximately 9.3 million beneficiaries and represents a de facto basic income floor, but is not linked to work-seeking or skills development activities. The Inclusive Growth Spending Review should prioritise: expansion of the Employment Tax Incentive (ETI) for youth workers, the Jobs Fund's fourth investment round, EPWP reform toward skills-pathway integration, and SMME employer de-registration cost reduction.

Where the numbers stand

All indicators →
  • Unemployment Rate (Strict Definition)33.2%Q2 2025

    +9.9 pp from 23.3% in Q2 2020. Spans a break: series redefined 2022. Baseline quarter affected by a break: series redefined 2020. Stats SA QLFS / DE-LMIS (P0211)

  • Fiscal Balance-4.9% of GDP2026

    +0.6 pp from -5.5% of GDP in 2021. National Treasury / SARB (Budget Review)

Next official read on this: Capital expenditure by the public sector, 2025 — due 29 October 2026 (Stats SA schedule).

Series tagged to this idea’s binding constraint. The period beside each value is the latest observation this site holds, which can lag the official release: the series are rebuilt offline from the sources named, not read live. Most recent retrieval: 2026-09-13.

Stakeholder Landscape

Who backs this reform, who needs convincing, and which interests or red lines shape political feasibility.

Backers

9

1 stakeholder

Negotiation weight

0

0 conditional actors

Opposition weight

9

1 opposing actor

Coalition Read

AI-drafted stances · 0 reviewed

2 of 38 actors mapped — not scored

A coalition score needs at least 3 mapped stances, or actors carrying 25% of the map's influence. The stances below are the evidence; the average over this few of them would not be.

Anchor: National Treasury. Most serious blocker: COSATU.

Political Tractability

—Needs reviewed signals

No reviewed signals · 0% of mapped influence has been reviewed.

Backers1 stakeholder
National TreasuryCoalition anchorInfluence 9/10

Idea 26 is a Budget-proposed, MTEF-commissioned, fiscally neutral spending review — Treasury's own instrument; the note's political-feasibility caution is not among the brief's conditions, so support is better grounded than conditional.

Interest: Fiscal consolidation with public debt stabilising below 75% of GDP; structural reforms that improve revenue without expanding contingent liabilities;…

Concern: Unfunded mandates in energy transition (JETP co-financing); Eskom's R400bn+ debt and how restructuring socialises costs; reform proposals that create…

Engagement path: Reforms must be fiscally neutral or revenue-positive over the MTEF window; SOE restructuring must demonstrably reduce contingent liabilities; credible…

Opposition to Manage1 stakeholder
COSATUHigh-risk blockerInfluence 9/10

COSATU opposes redirecting social grants toward employment programmes, viewing grants as a constitutional safety net.

Interest: Worker protections under the Labour Relations Act and Basic Conditions of Employment Act; collective bargaining rights; equitable wage growth; just tr…

Concern: Labour market flexibility reforms that erode LRA and BCEA protections; Eskom unbundling without adequate just transition planning for NUM members; pri…

Engagement path: Meaningful social dialogue through NEDLAC before structural reforms are finalised; just transition funding ring-fenced in MTEF; skills retraining and…

OECD

Referenced in OECD Economic Surveys: South Africa

OECD SA Survey (2017, 2020, 2022, 2025). Building an inclusive social protection system is a key recommendation in the 2020 survey.

Grants keep people alive — employment programmes give them a future. Both matter, but the balance has shifted too far from investment toward consumption. — PEAC Policy Note 2024

Implementation Roadmap

National Treasury, working through the MTEF process, will commission a comprehensive Inclusive Growth Spending Review evaluating whether the R280 billion social protection budget is optimally structured for both poverty reduction and employment activation. The review will model trade-offs between the SRD grant, EPWP, and the Jobs Fund. DPME will lead programme evaluation using administrative data from SASSA and the UIF. The SRD grant's legal status will be resolved by 2026/27 MTBPS as committed. Success is measured by a published spending review with evidence-based policy recommendations adopted in the 2027 Budget.

1

National Treasury and DPME commission the Inclusive Growth Spending Review: define scope (social grants, EPWP, Jobs Fund, youth employment interventions), appoint technical review team, establish data access protocols with SASSA and UIF

Q1-Q2 2025National Treasury / Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (DPME)
2

SASSA and DSD publish consolidated administrative data on SRD grant recipient characteristics, labour market status, and grant utilisation patterns; link to SARS taxpayer register for income verification and Jobs Fund outcome data

Q2-Q3 2025South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) / Department of Social Development (DSD) / SARS
3

Spending Review technical report: model three scenarios for social protection budget reorientation (maintain status quo, partial employment activation, full basic income grant); publish for stakeholder consultation

Q4 2025-Q1 2026National Treasury / DPME
4

Resolve SRD grant legal framework by 2026/27 MTBPS: Cabinet decision on whether to retain as permanent means-tested grant, convert to employment-linked support, or phase toward basic income grant; embody in Social Assistance Act amendment or annual Appropriations

MTBPS 2026 (October 2026)National Treasury / DSD / Cabinet Economic Cluster
Timeline

12 months for spending review (2025); SRD legal framework resolution: MTBPS 2026; Budget reorientation: 2027 forward

Estimated Cost

No direct fiscal cost for review process (National Treasury operational budget); potential fiscal reorientation of R5-15 billion within existing social protection envelope, not new expenditure

Required Legislation

Social Assistance Act (13 of 2004) amendment may be required to formalise SRD grant or convert to permanent means-tested structure; the spending review itself requires no new spending authority

Political Feasibility

Complex political economy. ANC social development caucus supports a basic income grant; DA supports time-limited means-tested grants with employment linkages; EFF supports unconditional BIG. GNU dynamics require negotiated consensus. Evidence from the spending review is critical to building a cross-party coalition for a workable reform.

International Precedents

Brazil's Bolsa Familia combined cash transfers with education and health conditionalities, reducing poverty while building human capital - success required well-functioning complementary services. Mexico's Programa Prospera evaluation (Parker and Todd 2017) found conditional transfers effective in reducing school dropout but insufficient alone to overcome labour market barriers in high-unemployment regions, directly relevant to SA's context.

International Comparisons

View all →
🇧🇷Brazil2003

Brazil's Bolsa Família (2003) reached 14 million families (50 million people) at peak, transferring BRL 190/month conditional on children attending school and health check-ups. Poverty fell from 22% to 7% between 2003 and 2014; 29 million people exited extreme poverty. Payments were made via Caixa Econômica Federal bank cards, bringing 10 million unbanked families into the formal financial system. SA's 18-million-recipient social grants system uses a similar architecture; Bolsa Família demonstrates the power of conditionality and financial inclusion linkages within grant programmes.

Approach

Bolsa Família merged four overlapping federal transfers into one benefit paid on a single card, and built the Cadastro Único — a national registry of low-income households maintained by municipalities and used by every social programme thereafter. Conditions attached to the payment, school attendance and child health checks, were monitored by the education and health ministries and enforced through graduated warnings and suspension rather than removal. Municipalities were paid a management fee scaled to the quality of their registry data, which is what kept the register current. Payment went to the mother by default.

Timeline: Programme consolidation within a year of the 2003 launch; registry coverage and conditionality monitoring matured over about five years

Lessons for South Africa

The spending review's question — whether SRD money can buy employment outcomes — runs straight into what the evidence supports and Brazil illustrates: conditionality works on services that exist and can be attended, which is why Bolsa Família conditioned on school and clinic rather than on job search. At SA's unemployment rate an activation condition on the SRD would mostly ration the grant. The transferable piece is administrative: the Cadastro Único is a single registry serving every programme, whereas SASSA, the SRD database and EPWP recruit from separate lists — which is precisely what makes a credible review comparing social grant and employment spending impossible to conduct.

Brazil Ministry of Social Development Bolsa Família Report 2014; World Bank Brazil Poverty Note 2022

Evidence & Research

Research corpus →

Links proposed by lexical matching and screened by a calibrated research judge. Follow the paper for the full argument and its caveats.

Policy documents

No linked official-document evidence yet. Coverage is incomplete.

Get the Monday briefing by email

— A short weekly digest of what moved in SA policy.

Status History

tracked since Mar 2026
  1. Recorded as Proposed when status tracking began — held since at least Mar 2026.
    Mar 2026

Data as of 2026-10-12 · latest PMG meeting 2026-10-09