Pro-poor growth and social protection in South Africa: Exploring the interactions

Figures & data

Table 1: Poverty shifts by race of household head, 1995–2005

Category	Headcount Index			Poverty Gap Ratio
	1995	2005	Percentage change	1995	2005	Percentage change
R322/month poverty line
African	63.04	57.55	–9	31.86	25.23	–21
Coloured	39	35.13	–10	14.66	13.51	–8
Asian	4.71	8.43	79	1.03	2.32	125
White	0.53	0.38	–28	0.22	0.11	–50
Total	52.54	49.03	–7	26.04	21.29	–18
R174/month poverty line
African	38.18	28.17	–26	14.71	9.01	–39
Coloured	14.62	12.94	–11	4.09	4.09	0
Asian	0.82	1.6	95	0.14	1.09	679
White	0.23	0.07	–70	0.09	0	–100
Total	30.92	23.55	–24	11.77	7.54	–36

Source: StatsSA (1995, 2005) and author's own calculations.

Notes: Poverty lines are in 2000 prices. At both poverty lines, the changes in the headcount rate are statistically significant at the 95% level, at the aggregate and for Africans (indicated by the shaded cells). The population in 1995 has been weighted by population weights according to the 1996 Census. The population in 2005 has been weighted by the household weight multiplied by the household size. The 2005 weights are based on the 2001 Census.

Figure 1: Cumulative distribution functions, 1995 and 2005

Source: StatsSA (1995, 2005) and authors’ own calculations.
Notes: 1. Per-capita expenditure as converted to real per-capita expenditure (expressed in 2000 prices) using the Consumer Price Index. 2. The population in 1995 has been weighted by population weights according to the 1996 Census. The population in 2005 has been weighted by the household weight multiplied by the household size. The 2005 weights are based on the 2001 Census.

Figure 2: Cumulative distribution functions by gender of household head, 1995 and 2005

Source: StatsSA (1995, 2005) and authors’ own calculations.
Notes: 1. Per-capita expenditure as converted to real per-capita expenditure (expressed in 2000 prices) using the Consumer Price Index. 2. The population in 1995 has been weighted by population weights according to the 1996 Census. The population in 2005 has been weighted by the household weight multiplied by the household size. The 2005 weights are based on the 2001 Census.

Table 2: Inequality shifts by race – Gini coefficients for 1995 and 2005

Category	1995	2005
African	0.55	0.56
Coloured	0.49	0.58
Asian	0.45	0.53
White	0.39	0.45
Total	0.64	0.69

Source: StatsSA (1995, 2005) and author's own calculations.

Notes: The changes in the value of the Gini coefficients between 1995 and 2005 are statistically significant at the 95% level, with the exception of Africans (indicated by the shaded cells). The population in 1995 has been weighted by population weights according to the 1996 Census. The population in 2005 has been weighted by the household weight multiplied by the household size. The 2005 weights are based on the 2001 Census.

Table 3: Inequality within and between race groups, 1995 and 2005

By race	1995	2005
Within-group component	0.433	0.511
	(53.15%)	(50.35%)
Between-group component	0.381	0.504
	(46.85%)	(49.65%)
Total inequality (Theil-T)	0.814	1.014
	(100%)	(100%)

Source: StatsSA (1995, 2005) and author's own calculations.

Notes: The population in 1995 has been weighted by population weights according to the 1996 Census. The population in 2005 has been weighted by the household weight multiplied by the household size. The 2005 weights are based on the 2001 Census. It has not been possible to calculate confidence intervals or t-statistics for the Theil measures. This means that we are not able to evaluate whether the change in the contribution of the two components to total inequality is statistically significant.

Figure 3: Growth incidence curve for South Africa, expenditure: 1995–2005

Source: StatsSA (1995, 2005) and authors’ own calculations.
Notes: 1. The population in 1995 has been weighted by population weights according to the 1996 Census. The population in 2005 has been weighted by the household weight multiplied by the household size. The 2005 weights are based on the 2001 Census. 2. Figures are annualised growth rates.

Figure 4: Household access to social grants per household income decile, 1995–2005

Source: StatsSA (1995, 2005) and authors’ own calculations.
Notes: 1. The population in 1995 has been weighted by population weights according to the 1996 Census. The population in 2005 has been weighted by the household weight multiplied by the household size. The 2005 weights are based on the 2001 Census.

Figure 5: Per-capita grant income as proportion of total household income, South Africa, 1995 and 2005

Source: StatsSA (1995, 2005) and authors’ own calculations.
Notes: 1. The population in 1995 has been weighted by population weights according to the 1996 Census. The population in 2005 has been weighted by the household (HH) weight multiplied by the household size. The 2005 weights are based on the 2001 Census.

Table 4: Gini coefficient for total per-capita income with and without grant income by race, 1995 and 2005

	1995 Gini coefficient			2005 Gini coefficient
	Per-capita income	Per-capita income without grants	Difference in Gini units	Per-capita income	Per-capita income without grants	Difference in Gini units
African	0.56	0.59	0.03	0.61	0.71	0.10
Coloured	0.49	0.52	0.03	0.59	0.64	0.04
Asian	0.46	0.47	0.01	0.56	0.57	0.01
White	0.44	0.44	0.00	0.51	0.52	0.01
Overall	0.64	0.66	0.02	0.72	0.77	0.05

Source: StatsSA (1995, 2005) and author's own calculations.

Notes: The bold Gini coefficients between 1995 and 2005 indicate when the differences in the estimates are statistically significant at the 95% level. The population in 1995 has been weighted according to the 1996 Census, while the population in 2005 has been weighted according to the 2001 Census. In both datasets, the population has been weighted by the household weight multiplied by the household size.

Figure 6: Lorenz curves for Africans: with and without grant income, 1995 and 2005

Source: StatsSA (1995, 2005) and authors’ own calculations.
Notes: 1. The population in 1995 has been weighted by population weights according to the 1996 Census. The population in 2005 has been weighted by the household (HH) weight multiplied by the household size. The 2005 weights are based on the 2001 Census.

Table 5: Gini coefficient including and excluding grant income from total income by province and gender of household head, 1995–2005

Province	Per-capita income, 1995	Per-capita income without grants, 1995	Per-capita income, 2005	Per-capita income without grants, 2005
Western Cape	0.6	0.62	0.69	0.72
Eastern Cape	0.65	0.73	0.69	0.80
Northern Cape	0.64	0.69	0.66	0.75
Free State	0.64	0.68	0.69	0.75
Kwazulu-Natal	0.61	0.65	0.71	0.79
North West	0.65	0.68	0.68	0.74
Gauteng	0.56	0.57	0.68	0.70
Mpumalanga	0.6	0.63	0.69	0.77
Limpopo	0.63	0.69	0.63	0.77
Gender of household head
Male	0.63	0.66	0.70	0.73
Female	0.59	0.66	0.68	0.80

Source: StatsSA (1995, 2005) and author's own calculations.

Notes: Bold differences in the Gini coefficient are statistically significant. The population in 1995 has been weighted according to the 1996 Census, while the population in 2005 has been weighted according to the 2001 Census. In both datasets, the population has been weighted by the household weight multiplied by the household size.

Figure 7: Growth incidence curve for total income (including grant income), 1995–2005

Source: StatsSA (1995, 2005) and authors’ own calculations.
Notes: 1. The population in 1995 has been weighted by population weights according to the 1996 Census. The population in 2005 has been weighted by the household weight multiplied by the household size. The 2005 weights are based on the 2001 Census. 2. Figures are annualised growth rates.

Figure 8: Growth incidence curve for total income (excluding grant income), 1995–2005

Source: StatsSA (1995, 2005) and authors’ own calculations.
Notes: 1. The population in 1995 has been weighted by population weights according to the 1996 Census. The population in 2005 has been weighted by the household weight multiplied by the household size. The 2005 weights are based on the 2001 Census. 2. Figures are annualised growth rates.

Figure 9: Growth incidence curve for rural households: income including grant income, 1995–2005

Source: StatsSA (1995, 2005) and authors’ own calculations.
Notes: 1. The population in 1995 has been weighted by population weights according to the 1996 Census. The population in 2005 has been weighted by the household (HH) weight multiplied by the household size. The 2005 weights are based on the 2001 Census. 2. Figures are annualised growth rates.

Figure 10: Growth incidence curve for rural households: income excluding grant income: 1995–2005

Source: StatsSA (1995, 2005) and authors’ own calculations.
Notes: 1. The population in 1995 has been weighted by population weights according to the 1996 Census. The population in 2005 has been weighted by the household (HH) weight multiplied by the household size. The 2005 weights are based on the 2001 Census. 2. Figures are annualised growth rates.

Table

	July 1995	July 1996	April 2005	April 2006
Old age	410	420	780	820
War veterans	428	448	798	838
Disability	410	430	780	820
Grant-in-aid	66	70	180	190
Foster care	288	305	560	590
Care dependency	410	430	780	820
Child support	–	–	180	190
Maintenance (parent)	410	430	–	–
Maintenance (child)	127	135	–	–

Source: National Treasury of South Africa, Budget Information, Budget Review (2008); and National Treasury of South Africa: Intergovernmental Fiscal Review (2001: 65).