GENDER-SOUTH AFRICA: No Women’s Budget This Year

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Farah Khan

CAPE TOWN, Feb 24 2000 (IPS) - Finance Minister Trevor Manuel has failed to present a women’s budget or one that is significantly pro-poor, analysts say.

According to the national budget, announced this week, social spending will remain constant while key welfare grants have risen only miniscually.

Targetted anti-poverty spending, like grants, comprises only 0,7 percent of the budget, excluding interest payments on debt, while the defence budget has grown by 24 percent as South Africa begins to pay for a 30 billion South African Rand arms deal signed last year. (one US Dollars is equivalent to 6,3 South African Rands)

Manuel did not repeat last year’s practice of explicitly detailing the feminine benefits of public spending, leaving gender activists wondering if the women’s budget has become “yesterday’s fashion”.

Previously, each department’s budget would be measured for its targeted impact on women. The Welfare budget, for example, would be broken down to see how much money was being spent on the poorest women.

South Africa’s women’s budget is a pioneering attempt to filter national spending through a gender lens.

Like many developing countries, South African poverty wears a female face and the women’s budget is a public-Non Governmental Organisation, NGO, sector partnership to make sure that the country targets its anti-poverty programmes at women.

The women’s budget has been highlighted by the World Bank which wants to pilot the plan across the developing world as it tries to bring home the message that there is a close correlation between women’s poverty and national growth.

According to official statistics female-headed households have a 50 percent higher incidence of poverty than male-headed households. A higher proportion of working women live in poor households and 61 percent of the elderly poor are women.

There are more female unemployed South African women than male and 35 percent of the female economically active population are unemployed while 25 percent of the male economically active population are unemployed.

Yet Manuel dropped the gendered analysis from this year’s budget and also did not mention women’s advancement in his eagerly awaited Budget speech this year – a surprise, since it’s a development concern he has always kept on top of the Finance Department’s agenda.

The exclusion is a disappointment in a budget that has won kudos for the careful balancing act it managed to achieve. Manuel has sought to stimulate the economy through tax cuts for low and middle-income earners as well as for small businesses.

This, in itself, can be read as a pro-women’s measure because as unemployment (about 40 percent of South Africa’s economically active population is unemployed) continues to bite, many women turn to the small business sector to survive. In addition, most women workers are concentrated in the lower bands of the workforce, precisely those targetted for tax relief.

Women victims of sexual violence will also benefit from the added budget votes for the police and for the Scorpions unit which is establishing specialised rape courts to expedite the prosecution of rapists.

According to Interpol South Africa has the world’s highest rape rate. Anti-rape activists say a woman is raped every 36 seconds in South Africa.

But the tiny increases in welfare grants impact most severely on women.

Pensions will go up by just 20 South African Rands to 540 South African Rands per month while child support grants have not risen, although the number of beneficiaries has increased.

The poorest mothers in the country receive a monthly 100 South African Rand grant to support their children. Because of bad marketing, only five percent of eligible mothers, in fact, draw the grant.

But Manuel told parliament this will change in the current financial year. “In January 2,000 about 217 000 children received this benefit, up from 28 000 in March 1999. About 20 000 new beneficiaries are added per month.”

The single mother headed household is the most common in South Africa, so the grants benefit women primarily.

“It is likely that the social safety net will weaken over the next three years,” believes the Institute for Democracy in South Africa (Idasa), adding that Manuel should have considered increasing grants rather than using new revenue to pay for a “greater than required reduction in our debt and deficit”.

Manuel has predicted a budget deficit of 2,65 for this financial year, down significantly from the years of white rule.

His fiscally prudent financial policy features low deficit and inflation targets, cuts in public spending and a privatisation programme.

The recipe for restructuring the economy has caused some pain as social budgets have contracted and women have been most severely affected by the fall-out.

At least 400 000 jobs have been lost in the past five years and the social costs, like increased sexual violence, are high.

Manuel has chosen a path of pain followed by gain. He argues that the present budget (with its tax cuts, small gains in social spending and the potential for job creation) present the best opportunity for growth and development.

But Idasa argues that “A virtuous cycle of growth requires an initial stimulus. It is not certain [from the present budget] where this stimulus will come from.”