A design for disaster: the tragic consequences of South Africa’s failing policies
The recent deaths of 12 children from poisoned food in Gauteng, the 2022 Enyobeni Tavern tragedy that claimed 21 young lives, and the 2022 Pongola crash that killed 19 students were all preventable catastrophes. They are symptoms of a broader, systemic issue—an indictment of the policies of SA Inc.
A 2020 report by Statistician-General Risenga Maluleke, titled Child Poverty in South Africa: A Multiple Overlapping Deprivation Analysis, points directly to the root of these tragedies: growing poverty across South Africa. Though based on data from the 2015 Living Conditions Survey (LCS), conditions have only worsened. Between 2011 and 2016, multidimensional poverty rose in 82 of the country’s 252 municipalities, leaving more and more young people in conditions of acute deprivation.
For youth aged 15-34, multidimensional poverty is especially stark, driven by a lack of educational access, which alone triples their poverty rate compared to the general population. This segment endures poverty at a staggering rate of 35%. Adding to this, another 35% of poverty among youth is attributed to being out of both education and employment, with no adults working in their households. Altogether, these two factors drive 70% of youth deprivation.
The suffering of South African children isn’t accidental—it is engineered by neglectful policy. Until a new design emerges that genuinely prioritizes their future, their plight will continue to worsen. Right now, no viable solutions indicate that South African children’s lives will improve any time soon.
The Medium-Term Budget Policy Statement could, in theory, take meaningful steps to prioritise children’s welfare and lay the foundation for a brighter future. Yet, without intentional planning, the future only grows darker for South Africa’s youth.
Between 2016 and 2024, child fatalities have occurred all too frequently, often because of lapses by adults. Children have died at the hands of reckless truck drivers, in poorly regulated nightclubs, and from consuming unsafe food in an environment where health inspections fail and escalating food prices push families to desperate choices. These tragedies were avoidable but were ultimately caused by policy failures that create fatal traps for the nation’s youth.
These children ran into a policy trap that swept away their young lives- a needless tragedy that left hearts broken and lives decimated.
The Statistician-General’s 2020 report, based on the 2015 data, in a 120-page document explores the extent of children’s exposure to poverty offering six chapter on recommendations that further sheds light to those who are immersed in policy to address this policy oversight.
While the report focuses on children from 0-17, it segments them further into 0-4, 5-12, and 13-17 age groups. Even the dumbest policy maker would not have difficulty to realise the impacts by age group and the inflection points that deepen the tragedy, only if they paid attention to the report, but they do not. The report remains largely ignored.
The big surprise, yet not unexpected as a severe multidimensional poverty for both poor and non-poor, is education. This is obvious in the poor outcomes.
The report identifies three core issues:
5-17-year-olds not attending school,
7-17-year-olds failing to complete grades appropriate to their age,
5-17-year-olds attending schools without basic facilities or services.
The paradoxes are also clear in the report. That the multidimensional poor are better protected than the non-poor reflects on the nature of a race to the bottom falsehoods of expensive non sociable and anti-community building enclosed estates of the non-poor versus the non-security requirements of nothing to protect amongst the multidimensionally poor. The contradictions are a reflection of a society that is unworkable and one yet to confront its demons.
The findings are devastating, and the recommendations are clear:
The report says the following recommendations can guide and improve the quality of child poverty measurement in South Africa:
1. Regularly conduct a survey similar to the Living Conditions Survey that includes child-specific questions in order to provide the current state of child poverty in the country.
"Both of the afore-mentioned surveys have a limited number of indicators relevant for the different stages of the lifecycle and gender-specific disparities.
The survey should, therefore, expand its coverage and collect child specific data on: Anthropometrics (weight and height of the child) for all children as well as information on the immunization of children under the age of 5 Preventive and curative care, and availability, affordability, and quality of health care services at all levels, for children of all age groups. Child protection (including teenage pregnancy, child marriage, age at first sexual intercourse and child labour) from early ages of children. These types of well-being indicators will ensure that rights, needs and risks faced by children of different age groups and sex are captured in the measurement of their well-being,“ the report says.
2. The report states, “In order to increase the robustness of the multidimensional poverty measure, it is recommended that in future surveys, the data accounts for the complexity of children’s outcomes such as psychological health, perceptions and attitudes to development. To the extent possible, child self-report on outcomes would contribute to better contextualisation and measuring well-being. "
Child-specific questions that feed into child Multiple Overlapping Deprivation Analysis should also be identified for inclusion in other household-based surveys like the South African Demographic Health Survey (SADHS) at design level.
Unfortunately, the Living Conditions Survey nor the Income and Expenditure Survey could not be run because the Treasury could not make money available. There is a gap, therefore, in evidence gathering. But one would be expecting too much from the government because the government hardly uses the ample evidence before them. So basically, they do not need it. This is sad evidence.
Dr Pali Lehohla is a Professor of Practice at the University of Johannesburg, a Research Associate at Oxford University, a board member of Institute for Economic Justice at Wits and a distinguished Alumni of the University of Ghana. He is the former Statistician-General of South Africa.
BUSINESS REPORT