Michael Noble, Phakama Ntshongwana & Rebecca Surender
Attitudes to work
and social security
in South Africa
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za
Commissioned by the Urban Rural and Economic Development Research Programme of
the Human Sciences Research Council and prepared by the Centre for the Analysis of
South African Social Policy, University of Oxford.
Published by HSRC Press
Private Bag X9182, Cape Town, 8000, South Africa
www.hsrcpress.ac.za
First published 2008
ISBN 978-0-7969-2219-9
© 2008 Human Sciences Research Council
Copyedited by Karen van Eden
Typeset by Simon van Gend
Print management by comPress
Distributed in Africa by Blue Weaver
Tel: +27 (0) 21 701 4477; Fax: +27 (0) 21 701 7302
www.oneworldbooks.com
Distributed in Europe and the United Kingdom by Eurospan Distribution Services (EDS)
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7240 0856; Fax: +44 (0) 20 7379 0609
www.eurospanbookstore.com
Distributed in North America by Independent Publishers Group (IPG)
Call toll-free: (800) 888 4741; Fax: +1 (312) 337 5985
www.ipgbook.com
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

List of tables and figures iv
Acknowledgements v
Acronyms vi

Table 3.7: ‘It’s worth my accepting a job with a low wage now if I can improve my
position in the long run’ 9
Table 3.8: ‘People who can’t get work deserve help in the form of social grants’ 10
Table 3.9: ‘Who do you think should mainly be responsible for ensuring that people have
enough to live on in the following circumstances?’ 11
Table 3.10: Priorities for extra government spending 12
Table 3.11: ‘Suppose the government had to choose one of the following options. Which
do you think it should choose?’ 12
Table 3.12: ‘The government should spend more money on social grants for the poor,
even if it leads to higher taxes’ 13
Table 3.13: Should social grant amounts be raised? 13
Table 3.14: ‘Most people on social grants desperately need the help’ 14
Table 3.15: ‘Many people who receive social grants do not really deserve any help’ 15
Table 3.16: ‘The Child Support Grant is too high and discourages people from
finding jobs’ 15
Table 3.17: ‘Payment of social grants by the government encourages people to stop
helping each other’ 16
Table 3.18: ‘What should a lone mother do if she has children under school age?’ 16
Table 3.19: ‘Should government provide money to help with childcare?’ 17
Figures
Figure 3.1: Work-seeking strategies of the workless 6
Figure 3.2: Obstacles to finding employment 7
Figure 3.3: Reasons for moving in last five years 8
Figure 3.4: ‘If you did not have a job, what would you live on?’ 10
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za
v

The Human Sciences Research Council is gratefully acknowledged for including the
module upon which this analysis is based within the South African Social Attitudes Survey
2006. Gemma Wright, Professor Jonathan Bradshaw, Dr Charles Meth and Benjamin

low-income older people (Older Person’s Grant), disabled children (Care Dependency
Grant), and fostered children (Foster Child Grant) (Department of Social Development,
2005). For able-bodied people of working age – the unemployed – there is a significant
hole in the safety net. Such people are provided with only limited social protection
through measures such as the Expanded Public Works Programme (EPWP) and in dire
circumstances may be able to claim distress relief through Grant in Aid. There is plenty of
evidence that social grants going into the household are pooled to help all members
make ends meet (e.g. Moller and Ferreira, 2003) but there is no dedicated grant –
conditional or otherwise – for the support of the unemployed themselves.
Despite the absence of direct social assistance cover for unemployed people, and despite
persuasive scholarly argument to the contrary (e.g. Meth, 2004), there is continuing media
and political concern that social grants might act as a disincentive to the unemployed in
seeking and obtaining work and create a ‘dependency culture’.
In the context of these debates this study aims to obtain evidence about whether such
disincentive effects exist, that is, the extent to which social grants discourage recipients
from engaging in employment activities and foster a culture of dependency. The study
explores the views of South African citizens about paid work, the social grants system,
and the relationship between social grants and paid work.
1 See Stats SA (2006) for definitions of ‘official unemployment’ and ‘discouraged workers’.
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

2

Methodology
This analysis is based on data from a module, which was included in the Human Sciences
Research Council’s 2006 South African Social Attitudes Survey (SASAS). The questions in
the module were in part informed by a parallel qualitative project that is being
undertaken by the authors on behalf of the National Department of Social Development
under a DfID project (Surender et al., 2007).
2

detachment from the labour market and display other characteristics of a dependency
culture, most of the analysis is undertaken using these variables.
2 This SASAS module was funded by a separate pump-priming grant from the University of Oxford.
3 Multivariate analysis of this module will be undertaken at a later stage.
4 Stats SA definition is used.
5 In due course income will be imputed for those who refused/didn’t know using Sequential Regression Multiple
Imputation. See http://www.casasp.ox.ac.uk/docs/Multiple%20Imputation.pdf.
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za
3

Findings
3.1 The importance of work
The dependency culture thesis (in simplified form) is predicated on the emergence of
communities where the adults have little or no attachment to the labour market, where
paid work is not valued and where individuals are content, in the long term, to derive
their income from state transfers (Mead, 1992; Murray, 1984; Murray, 1996). A ‘culture of
dependency’ emerges, it is argued, and this is transmitted intergenerationally. Children, it
is hypothesised, see no working role models and observe a contented reliance on state
transfers and so inherit this tendency to ‘dependency’.
The individuals exhibiting the dependency culture are said to be a moral ‘underclass’
(Auletta, 1982; Murray, 1984; Murray, 1986). In the US, where these notions re-emerged
6

in the 1980s, the existence of an underclass with different values has been refuted by a
considerable weight of evidence (Jencks, 1992; Jencks and Pederson, 1991). In the UK,
the evidence is similarly weighted against any significant lack of attachment of the
unemployed to the labour market (Gallie, 1988); or the emergence of a dependency
culture (Morris, 1995; Walker, 1996). Earlier work had refuted the idea of intergenerational
transmission of negative values relating to motivation to work (Brown and Madge, 1982;
Rutter and Madge, 1976).

4
on the proposition that ‘I feel alright about being out of work because so many other
people are out of work too’. Notably, those without jobs were adamant that they did not
feel adjusted to the position of being without a job.
As can be see from Table 3.1, 86% of the unemployed disagreed with the proposition.
There were significant differences between population groups with 87.6% of African
people disagreeing compared with 65.1% of the coloured population and 75.6% of the
white population.
8

All unemployed people agreed or strongly agreed (86%) that they got very bored having
no work to do. This view was most apparent among Africans (87.6%) and weakest among
the white group (64.4%).
Those in paid work were specifically asked to comment on statements relating to their
view of work and to the role of work as an agent of social integration. First, in response
to the statement ‘a person can get satisfaction out of life without having a job’ 57.1%
strongly disagreed or disagreed (Table 3.2). Significantly, those regarding themselves as
‘poor’ or who were ‘just getting by’ disagreed more strongly than the ‘non-poor’.
Table 3.2: ‘A person can get satisfaction out of life without having a job’
Non-poor Just get by Poor All
Strongly agree/Agree 33.7% 30.3% 30.1% 31.3%
Neither 16.2% 8.1% 8.8% 10.8%
Strongly disagree/Disagree 49.6% 61.3% 59.8% 57.1%
Undecided 0.5% 0.5% 1.4% 0.8%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: SASAS 2006, Group analysed: All respondents (by self-assessed poverty)
Second, a very high percentage of people working for pay felt it was important to ‘hang
on to a job’ even if they didn’t like it (Table 3.3):
Table 3.3: ‘Once you’ve got a job, it is important to hang onto it even if you do not really like it’
Non-poor Just get by Poor All

work promotes integration and overcomes isolation (Barry, 1998; Levitas, 2005). Seventy
per cent agreed (or strongly agreed) that they regarded working as the normal thing to
do, 65.6% saw it as giving a sense of belonging to the community, and nearly 64% saw its
role as overcoming social isolation.
Table 3.4: Views about the role of paid work
‘Normal’ ‘Belonging’ ‘No isolation’
Strongly agree 25.6% 21.4% 19.2%
Agree 45.1% 44.2% 44.7%
Neither 4.6% 11.5% 13.5%
Disagree 21.7% 19.5% 18.0%
Strongly disagree 3.1% 3.5% 4.5%
Undecided 25.6% 0.0% 0.2%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
The feeling that work is the normal thing to do was highest amongst the Indian/Asian
and the coloured community with 86.8% and 83.9% respectively agreeing or strongly
agreeing with the proposition. On the other hand, the social integration role of work was
stressed most by Africans, amongst whom nearly 69% agreed or strongly agreed that work
gave them a sense of belonging to the community whereas only 57% of the white group
held these views. There were no significant differences between the ‘poor’ and the ‘non-
poor’ on any of these issues.
3.2 Seeking employment
Overall 81% of unemployed respondents in the survey stated that they were looking for
work. This is much higher than the Labour Force Survey (LFS) percentage who say they
9 This may reflect the fact that people with higher skills can afford to be less ‘dependent’ on a particular job.
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

6
are looking for work (around 53% of the total unemployed). This is probably explained
by the somewhat weaker test in SASAS than in the LFS.
10

community (Table 3.5).
Table 3.5: ‘If you were unemployed or are currently unemployed, how willing do you think you
would be to get training for a different job?’
African Coloured Indian/Asian White All
Very willing 60.3% 59.3% 64.3% 58.8% 60.1%
Quite willing 20.2% 13.9% 13.6% 15.5% 18.9%
Not willing 15.0% 24.2% 19.7% 21.3% 16.7%
Undecided 4.5% 2.6% 2.5% 4.5% 4.3%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: SASAS 2006, Group analysed: All respondents (by population group)
There were no significant differences between the poor and non-poor or between the
workless and non-workless.
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

8
Though there is relatively little that individuals can do to affect ‘demand side’ factors
associated with wider macroeconomic issues, one thing they can do is to move in order
to find work. Looking at just the unemployed population (Table 3.6), over 81% of the
African population would be very or quite willing to move to find work. A smaller
percentage of other population groups (between 52% and 54%) would be prepared to do
so.
Table 3.6: ‘How willing would you be to move to a different area to find a job?’
African Coloured Indian/Asian White All
Very willing 49.9% 35.9% 36.9% 33.9% 48.4%
Quite willing 31.5% 16.4% 15.5% 19.9% 30.0%
Not willing 16.9% 43.3% 45.2% 34.0% 19.3%
Undecided 1.8% 4.3% 2.4% 12.1% 2.3%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: SASAS 2006, Group analysed: Unemployed respondents (by population group)
Looking at this in another way, we asked whether any of the respondents had moved to

As previously noted, the current social grants system does not provide direct help to the
unemployed. This fact is clearly well known and responses to the question ‘If you did not
have a job, what would you live on?’ (see Figure 3.4) are conditioned accordingly.
Relatively small percentages of respondents (4.1% overall) indicate that they would live
on social grants. The figure was higher amongst the poor (11.6%). Presumably such
respondents anticipate that they would obtain financial support from those family
members who were in receipt of grants. It is interesting (and logical) that savings should
be more important for the non-poor than the poor (21.6% v 10%). Savings are also more
significant for Indian/Asian and white groups. For almost all groups ‘trying to earn a
living informally from home’ was the way they expected to make ends meet.
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

10
Figure 3.4: ‘If you did not have a job, what would you live on?’
3.4 Grants for unemployed people
As it is well known that the social grants system doesn’t extend to the unemployed, we
explored whether there was any evidence of support for extending the cover of the social
assistance scheme? As Table 3.8 indicates, we found that there was indeed widespread
popular support for the introduction of such support.
Table 3.8: ‘People who can’t get work deserve help in the form of social grants’
Non-poor Just get by Poor Unemployed All
Strongly agree/Agree 66.4% 73.6% 83.9% 78.9% 74.4%
Neither 18.6% 10.6% 5.4% 7.6% 11.5%
Strongly disagree/
Disagree
14.8% 14.4% 10.2% 12.2% 13.3%
Undecided 0.3% 1.4% 0.6% 1.4% 0.8%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: SASAS 2006, Groups analysed: All respondents (by self-assessed poverty) and unemployed respondents (as a subset)
As might be expected, support was strongest among the poor with nearly 83.9% agreeing

Where an
employed person
is retrenched
Where someone
not working
becomes sick
Where someone
has no recent
employment
Mainly the
government
47.5% 36.3% 73.2% 62.4%
Mainly person’s
employer
37.6% 46.1% - -
Mainly the person and
his/her family
11.9% 15.4% 22.6% 28.7%
None of the above 1.0% 0.9% 1.5% 3.6%
Undecided 1.9% 1.4% 2.7% 5.3%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: SASAS 2006, Group analysed: All respondents
3.6 Social grants as a government priority
Before turning to look in more detail at respondents’ views on the existing social grants
scheme, it is worth looking at people’s perceptions of government spending priorities and
the extent to which they support ‘welfare state-related’
12
spending in general and social
assistance spending in particular. Respondents were given a list of government spending
headings and were asked to give their two highest priorities for extra spending.

a Western Cape phenomenon: 25.6% of Western Cape residents prioritised extra spending
on police – all other provinces were approximately 8% or below except Gauteng (12.2%).
This general support for what we have described as ‘welfare state spending’ is supported
by raising money through taxes (Table 3.11):
Table 3.11: ‘Suppose the government had to choose one of the following options. Which do you
think it should choose?’
Working for pay Not working* All
Reduce tax and spend less on health,
education and social grants
9.6% 13.4% 11.7%
Keep tax as is and spend same on health,
education and social grants
45.6% 37.8% 41.3%
Increase tax and spend more on health,
education and social grants
44.8% 48.8% 47.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: SASAS 2006, Group analysed: All respondents (by ‘working for pay’)
Note: * A combination of unemployed, economically inactive, and retired persons, most of whom will not be paying any
direct taxes.
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za
13

Even among those currently working for pay there was a considerable amount of support
for increasing taxes to enable more welfare spending (44.8%) – nearly as much support
as from those not working (48.8%). There was little support for reducing the tax burden
by cutting social welfare spending.
3.7 Are social grants enough to live on?
There was also general agreement about the need for government to spend more money
on social grants for the poor even if it means higher taxes (Table 3.12). Although the

of grants even if it means higher taxes (Table 3.13)
13
.
Table 3.13: Should social grant amounts be raised?
Child Support
Grant
Disability Grant
Foster
Child
Grant
Old Age
Grant
Raise a lot 40.4% 39.5% 38.3% 47.7%
Raise a little 30.9% 34.0% 33.6% 29.5%
Keep the same 21.5% 24.1% 24.8% 21.2%
Reduce a little 2.2% 0.9% 1.5% 0.6%
Reduce a lot 2.8% 0.1% 0.2% 0.1%
Undecided 2.2% 1.4% 1.7% 0.9%
Source: SASAS 2006, Group analysed: All respondents
13 The actual question was: ‘Some people think that government should raise the level of social grants, while
other people disagree. Please say whether you would like to see the level of the [… grant] raised, kept the same
or reduced. Remember that if you want the level to be raised, this would probably mean that you would have
to pay more tax. If you want the level to be reduced this would probably mean paying less tax’.
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

14
There are no significant differences in views about raising the Disability and Old Age
Grants between those who are working and those who are not. However, in the case of
the Child Support Grant (CSG), 71.3% of the overall population would raise the amount
either a little or a lot, but only 65.6% of those in work would do so. Similarly, for the

Undecided 6.4% 4.4% 4.0% 1.1% 1.6% 0.6% 1.5%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: SASAS 2006, Groups analysed: All respondents (by self-assessed poverty); those living in households in receipt of social
grants (as a sub group); the unemployed (as a sub group); and those working for pay (as a sub group)
Note: * Other research suggests that this is a common phenomenon, i.e. where recipients regard themselves as deserving but
know of people whom they regard as not deserving, and is likely to be fuelled by the anti-fraud campaigns that are currently
underway (Surender et al., 2007).
Despite the general view that most people receiving grants are in need, there are some
who think that grant recipients do not deserve help (Table 3.15). In order to explore
these views further we asked whether people agreed with the statement that ‘many
people who receive social grants do not really deserve any help’.
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za
15

Table 3.15: ‘Many people who receive social grants do not really deserve any help’
Non-poor Just get by Poor
Household in
receipt of
grants
15
White All
Strongly agree/Agree 29.9% 24.9% 27.1%
24.7%
2
31.9% 27.2%
Neither 20.4% 14.8% 10.6% 13.5% 23.8% 15.3%
Disagree/ Strongly
disagree
41.4% 58.2% 59.0% 58.6% 29.2% 53.2%
Undecided 8.3% 2.0% 3.3% 3.2% 15.2% 4.4%

working. This group were adamant in their rejection of the assertion that it is not worth
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

16
them working – 67.1% disagreed with the proposition. When considering the unemployed
alone, this figure rises to 75.3%. These data, therefore, provide little evidence of the
existence of a ‘dependency culture’ among the workless.
Another possible consequence of government paying social assistance could be that it
discourages people from helping each other. As we can see from Table 3.17, while this
view has some support (30.5% agreeing or strongly agreeing), there were considerably
higher percentages disagreeing – ranging from 52.5% for the ‘non-poor’ through to 59.1%
for the ‘poor’.
Table 3.17: ‘Payment of social grants by the government encourages people to stop helping each
other’
Non-poor Just get by Poor All
Strongly agree/Agree 30.4% 31.9% 28.9% 30.5%
Neither 12.1% 7.9% 9.4% 9.7%
Disagree/Strongly disagree 52.6% 57.2% 59.1% 56.3%
Undecided 4.9% 3.0% 2.6% 3.5%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: SASAS 2006, Group analysed: All respondents (by self-assessed poverty)
3.10 Lone parents
According to De Koker et al. (2006) around 94% of the adult recipients of a CSG are
women. Their average age is 36 years and approximately 56% are lone parents (either
single, never married (52%) or divorced/separated (4%)). For the under-25s the
percentage of lone parents rises to around 84%. There is considerable international debate
as to whether a lone parent should seek paid work or stay at home to look after the
children. In general, the debate becomes more intense when applied to pre-school
children. The views range between those who think there should be an obligation for a
lone mother to work in order to economically support her children, those who think

provide help with childcare if the single mother did go out to work. In effect, should
provision of free childcare be part of the ‘social wage’?
Table 3.19: ‘Should government provide money to help with childcare?’
African Coloured
Indian
Asian
White
Lone
mothers
All
Strongly agree/Agree 74.7% 82.5% 77.6% 72.9% 77.7% 75.3%
Neither 10.6% 9.6% 8.0% 13.4% 7.9% 10.8%
Disagree/Strongly
disagree
12.9% 5.7% 11.7% 10.7% 13.0% 11.9%
Undecided 1.8% 2.1% 2.7% 3.0% 1.4% 2.0%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: SASAS 2006, Group analysed: Unemployed (by population group)
All groups – and especially lone mothers themselves – strongly support the proposition
that government should assist with the provision of childcare for working lone mothers.
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za

18

Conclusion
Recent concerns about potential unintended effects of the current grant system in South
Africa, in particular whether cash transfers undermine work motivation and create
dependency, do not appear to be supported by the results of this study. The key findings
from the analysis show that both those in and out of work placed a high value on paid
work and all groups agreed that paid work promotes dignity. Despite high levels of

(under the Expanded Public Works Programme) are a good start but should be increased
in capacity and located where they are most needed, perhaps using the Indices of
Deprivation (see Noble et al., 2006). Crèches would also be a source of employment for
local people. These findings can help inform debates initiated by the Department of
Social Development in its discussion document ‘Linking Social Grant Beneficiaries to
Poverty Alleviation and Economic Activity’ (Department of Social Development, 2006).
The unemployed were extremely motivated to get work. The majority (especially
Africans) would be willing to relocate in order to find work. Indeed, a proportion had
relocated in the past five years, and the main reason for this was to find work. Looking at
Free download from www.hsrcpress.ac.za
19

those who had moved, nearly half were now in paid work. Additionally it was interesting
to note that people were willing to take a low-paid job if it was a stepping stone to
something better, demonstrating the desire to enter the labour market even with low pay.
As we have noted there are no social grants for adults of working age who are not
disabled. The new proposed strengthening of the social insurance pillar of the
comprehensive social security system will not help the majority of unemployed people as
they will not have made appropriate contributions. Only an extension to the first pillar
will suffice, either by way of social grants or through some sort of Basic Income Grant.
Extension of the grant system to cover all adults of working age will help eradicate the
moral hazard associated with the current Disability Grant. If people get better and can’t
find work they would continue to receive state support (Natrass 2006; Whitworth and
Noble, forthcoming).
We asked some questions about possible forms of income maintenance for the
unemployed. Respondents were well aware that the social grants system is not
comprehensive and that there is no cover for unemployed people. Subsequently, most
felt that the only way for the unemployed to get by was to informally earn a living from
home. However, when asked whether there should be support through the grants system
for unemployed people, the majority of respondents were in favour of such a policy. This