![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
Although South Africa's democracy is only ten years old, the country has one of the most extensive welfare systems of any developing country in the world. The Constitution provides a right to social security. A monthly grant (the Child Support Grant) paid to the primary caregiver of every poor child under the age of 14 is reaching millions of children. However, the introduction of this grant coincided with the loss of a previous grant paid to the parents of the child. In South Africa today there is no financial support for parents themselves and no recognition of or compensation for their caring work. The grant has helped many mothers to feed and school their children and may also have improved their own status in some ways. At the same time, many young mothers have come under attack by being accused of becoming pregnant to access the grant and of abusing the payments. While the roll out of the grant has been very successful, problems remain in its implementation that create barriers to access for some of the most vulnerable women and their children. This assessment of the implementation of the Child Support Grant is based on the findings of a research study discussed in this article. The article also tries to develop a gendered rights framework that can be used to improve the position of women living in poverty.
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank the participants of the Gender and Social Security Seminar (hosted by the Centre for Applied Legal Studies, University of the Witwatersrand, 6–7 December 2004 at Constitution Hill) and my fellow authors and editors of this special issue for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. I owe a special debt of gratitude to Shireen Hassim for her many ideas and useful advice that have helped me to develop my thoughts in this article.
Notes
1. Khosa and others v Minister of Social Development and others; Mahlaule and another v Minister of Social Development and others 2004 (6) BCLR 569 (CC) (the ‘Khosa’ judgment).
2. Section 27(1)(c) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of l996.
3. Section 27(2).
4. For a recent discussion of Fraser's concept of ‘need’ in South Africa's constitutional jurisprudence see Brand, Citation2005.
5. For a discussion of this jurisprudence see Liebenberg, Citation2003.
6. There is a growing body of important new work on gender, poverty and socio-economic rights. See Fredman, Citation2005; Liebenberg, Citation2005; Brodsky and Day, Citation2002; and Williams, Citation2005.
7. Note 1 above. The cases concerned the rights of non-citizens who are permanent residents to various social assistance grants. The court found that the failure to include permanent residents in the legislation providing for these grants was unconstitutional and read in certain words to accommodate this group of people.
8. 2004 (12) BCLR 1243 (CC).
9. Ibid., para 57.
10. Note the thoughtful use of Nussbaum's ideas in the work of two other South African legal writers: Liebenberg (note 8 above); K. Van Marle, Citation2003.
11. Information provided by Shirin Motala based on data collected for the Alliance for Children's Entitlement to Social Security (ACESS) in a telephonic interview in March 2003.
12. They cited as authority a departmental circular of 6/10/2003.
13. Lund said that this was noted in evidence to the Lund Committee.
14. Interestingly, it is also known as ‘Mandela's grant’ or ‘Mbeki's grant’ and seen as evidence that the ANC government is helping the poor.
15. For a discussion of this policy see Hassim, Citation2006.
16. I am indebted to Francie Lund for bringing this observation to my attention.