The Gendered Analysis and Impact of the Child Support Grant in Doornkop, Soweto

The CSG enhances women’s power and control over household decision-making in financial matters, general household spending and in relation to child well-being. Women’s increased capability to make decisions and to exercise freedom of choice about how the grant is spent enabled them to generate valuable outcomes that are important to the quality of their lives and that of their children. In this respect we contend that the CSG contributes directly to a sense of empowerment of female grant beneficiaries and that it has some positive social transformative effects. There is some evidence that the receipt of the CSG may have a negative impact on the payment of maintenance by the fathers of the children. This is a worrying finding that needs further empirical investigation. However, there is some evidence in the study of men’s positive engagement in family relationships especially in providing help with children.

In order to fully understand the role that the CSG plays in the lives of poor families and households with children, a broad approach is needed that takes account of the multidimensional and gendered nature of poverty. Not only does the CSG contribute to reducing income poverty and vulnerability, it also has other multiplier effects that are not always taken into account when evaluating the CSG. Although the CSG was not designed to promote gender equality, its potential to contribute to social transformation should not be overlooked. Further, women’s contribution to the care economy and in subsidising social welfare programmes remains invisible. A better understanding is needed of the contribution of the CSG as a public good and a social investment in future generations. Those who argue that the grant is a disincentive to work lose sight of the grave domestic and care burdens of poor women who are in the forefront of the struggle for survival without adequate support. The CSG is therefore a social investment that builds human capabilities rather than a drain on public resources. The costs today are outweighed by the benefits that will accrue to society in future years.

Despite evidence to the contrary, dominant negative social discourses about the CSG, namely that it fosters dependency on the state or that grants are abused by beneficiaries and encourages teenage pregnancies, serve to undermine beneficiaries’ and children’s rights to social assistance guaranteed by South Africa’s Bill of Rights. Instead, negative beliefs about the CSG induce unnecessary fears among beneficiaries that the grant may be stopped. It stigmatises women for relying on grants and it may lead to those not receiving the grant looking down on those who get it. Negative discourses of this nature may also be associated with a growing conservative antiwelfare ideology that seems to be taking root in South Africa. For some, these views are associated with the view that minimal state intervention in social welfare is more desirable and that over emphasize individual explanations for poverty rather than structural explanations. All societies invest to varying degrees in the welfare of their people to alleviate poverty, prevent poverty, overcome social divisions and inequalities and promote social and economic development. The extent to which they do so depends on their values and the vision of the type of society that they wish to build. The CSG contributes to the building of a basic minimum level below which nobody should fall in the society. In this way the CSG aids in the creation of a fairer, more inclusive, gender-sensitive and a more just society that promotes both sustainable social development and economic growth.

Recommendations

A few practical steps to improve the gendered impact of the CSG and child well-being are recommended.