Abstract
It is of grave concern that the syndrome of poverty in old age in Lesotho, South Africa and Zimbabwe continues in spite of the existence of formal social security provisions in these countries. The solution to this problem lies in transforming the existing social security schemes in order to ensure broad-based coverage of older persons.
Introduction
While all humane societies value longevity and celebrate it as one of humanity’s major achievements, this translates into a paradox if one considers available evidence showing that poverty is a major risk factor of ageing. Social security encompasses both public and private measures including social allowances, social assistance and social insurance, which are aimed at ensuring a reasonable standard of living for designated populations.
What is disconcerting about the situation of older persons, also referred to as the elderly, is that they are harassed by poverty at a time when they are least able to help themselves. As HelpAge International (2000: 5) points out, ‘poverty and social exclusion remain the main stumbling blocks to the realisation of human rights of older people’. The situation is much worse in sub-Saharan Africa where Ferreira (2005) observes that older persons are consistently among the poorest of the poor.
Ferreira also observes that changes in family structures as a result of urbanization and other forces diminish kin support for older persons. This view is supported by Estes et al. (2003: 104) who point out that these changes are part of a new political economy shaping the lives of present and future generations of older people. They contend that there is a shift ‘to the more individualised structures – privatised pensions, privatised health and social care – which increasingly reflect the transformation of policies in the period from the 1980s onwards’.
This perhaps also reflects the dominance of the misplaced notions of productivity and the view that older people are no longer worthy of investment. As Estes et al. (2003: 87) point out, ‘market economics dictates that social services should be cut where they become a drain on the competitiveness of national capitalist systems’. At the same time, Estes et al. (2003) suggest an alternative position that ‘need should be prioritised above profit and that the most damaged by a system are those most deserving of protection in later life’. This view is consistent with Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 10 December 1948, the 1966 United Nations International Covenant on Economic and Cultural Rights and the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention on Social Security, among others, which point out that everyone as a member of society, inclusive of the elderly, has a right to social security.
Besides increasing the risk of poverty, industrialization and urbanization have created numerous pressures and vulnerabilities for older persons including the disruption of social networks, which traditionally have been a source of social security. Younger people are abandoning their elderly as they migrate to cities or foreign lands perceived to be wealthier.
Furthermore, owing to their vulnerability as a result of advanced age and neglect, the elderly are prone to food insecurity. Kofi Annan (2011) laments that hundreds of millions of people in Africa, inclusive of the elderly, go hungry every day, as it is the only continent that does not grow enough food to feed its own people. Though in the cases of Lesotho, South Africa and Zimbabwe, as elsewhere in developing countries, these concerns have been mitigated somewhat by the introduction of formal social security arrangements, the majority of the elderly are still excluded from coverage. Considering that social security plays a pivotal role in preventing poverty, its provision is a major area of interest, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa where poverty and unemployment levels are quite high.
In the case of Lesotho, Bello et al. (2008) observe that poverty among the elderly and their households has been worsened by the HIV and AIDS pandemic, and a sharp decline in assets due to stock theft and the retrenchment of Basotho mineworkers from South Africa who used to remit part of their earnings to assist their households back home.
Poverty is also viewed as the biggest threat to human security in South Africa and as Peters, quoted in Kaseke (2010) observes, people living in poverty in 2005 accounted for 58.7 percent of the population. In Zimbabwe, Kaseke et al. (1998) reveal that there are 71 homes for destitute elderly that are found in both rural and urban areas of the country. This is not only indicative of the breakdown of the extended family support system, but also that the elderly are living in dire poverty as they cannot meet their basic needs including housing, food, clothing and health. The pervasiveness of poverty among the elderly is also evident in the phenomenon of street elderly that is gradually taking root in the country’s major cities.
It is also interesting to note that in Lesotho, South Africa and Zimbabwe there has been a historical division between social insurance for workers in formal employment and public assistance for the rest of the population. However, as will be shown later, there are differences in the nature, scope and coverage of these schemes.
Social work is a welfare profession with a concern for social justice and human well-being. As such, social workers have an ethical responsibility to intervene in addressing problems experienced by the poor and marginalized, including older persons. To this extent they are crucial role players, both directly and indirectly, in addressing problems of social exclusion. It is therefore necessary that they undertake a variety of roles, including advocacy, policy formulation and implementation, and assessment of the needs and availability of support for the poor, inclusive of the elderly. It should also be noted that Departments of Social Welfare (Social Development in the case of South Africa), which mainly employ social workers, have the responsibility for providing social services to vulnerable groups in society, including the elderly.
This article, which is based on secondary data, seeks to examine the nature, coverage and efficacy of social security protection in Lesotho, South Africa and Zimbabwe, with a view to coming up with suggestions for strengthening the same.
Conceptualization of poverty
Though poverty in Europe is normally defined relative to the living standards of the society in which it occurs, it is now widely accepted that poverty is a complex and an inherently multi-dimensional phenomenon, particularly in the context of developing countries.
This article adopts the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 1997 Human Development Report definition which encompasses three dimensions of poverty, namely, the income measure, the basic needs perspective and capability perspective. The income measure makes use of a poverty line below which one is considered poor, whereas the basic needs perspective considers the inability to satisfy the basic necessities of life. On the other hand, the capability perspective considers powerlessness and the consequent inability to satisfy the basic necessities of life as poverty. This definition succinctly characterizes the situation of older persons in developing countries as their autonomy and quality of their lives is diminished owing to their incapacity to influence policy and to address their problems.
Socio-economic context and demographic trends
Lesotho, South Africa and Zimbabwe are developing countries located in Southern Africa. Poverty, unemployment and the scourge of HIV/AIDS characterize the socio-economic profile of the three countries. Sadly, the pervasiveness of these problems compromises the social security situation of the most vulnerable groups, particularly older persons.
According to the United Nations (2009) older persons in Lesotho constitute 6 percent of the total population and it is projected to rise to 12 percent by 2050. It is also estimated that 40 percent of Lesotho’s population of about 1,924,886 people are living below the poverty line. Compounding the poverty situation in Lesotho is the problem of unemployment, as the Bureau of Statistics (2007) reveals that only 26.7 percent of the total labour force in the country was in full-time employment in 2002/3.
Peters, quoted in Kaseke (2010), also reveals that 58.7 percent of the population of South Africa in 2005 lived in poverty. A contributory factor to the problem of poverty in South Africa is the relatively high rate of unemployment, which was estimated to be 27 percent in 2005 (Statistics South Africa, 2005). Le Bruyns and Pauw, quoted in Schenck and Louw (2010), also point out that poverty in South Africa is characterized by aspects such as inequality, race, spatial location, gender, age and unemployment. It is also Schenck and Louw’s (2010) observation that approximately a third of South Africa’s poor live in urban areas and two-thirds in rural areas, mainly in the former homeland areas in the Eastern Cape, KwaZulu Natal and Limpopo provinces. The UN also notes that 7 percent of South Africa’s population (currently estimated to be 50,586,757) comprises older persons and this is expected to double to 14 percent by 2050. On the same note, 6 percent of Zimbabwe’s population of about 12,084,304 people is made up of older persons and it is also likely to double by 2050 (UN, 2009). Unofficial estimates put the level of unemployment in the country at over 70 percent, and this is impacting very negatively on the welfare of the people in general and the elderly in particular.
It should also be noted that, unlike in developed countries with high levels of economic development, population ageing in Southern Africa, as elsewhere in developing countries, poses unique social security challenges as the economic environment is underdeveloped.
Comparative analysis of social security provision
The social security system in most developing countries, inclusive of Lesotho, South Africa and Zimbabwe, is a legacy of the colonial past when European systems were imposed on them. The formal social security system operative in Lesotho, South Africa and Zimbabwe consists of public assistance, also known as social assistance, and social insurance. However, as pointed out elsewhere, there are variations in the nature, scope and coverage of social security schemes in these countries. These social security arrangements are examined below.
Social insurance
As Kaseke (2010) among others observes, the majority of the people in developing countries are excluded from social insurance schemes as only 10 percent of the labour force is in formal employment. South Africa operates three social insurance schemes, namely unemployment insurance, the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Fund and the Road Accident Fund, which only cover the risks of unemployment and employment injury. However, according to Kaseke (2010), social insurance in South Africa does not cater for the contingency of old age, in spite of it being one of the nine branches of social security stipulated by the ILO Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention No. 102 of 1952. This inadvertently denies formal sector employees the opportunity to participate in arrangements for their social security in old age. As will be shown later, this scheme does not fare very well if compared to Zimbabwe’s social insurance scheme, which is compulsory and also provides for the contingency of old age. It is on this basis that Kaseke (2010) cautions that there is need to widen the base of risks that are covered by the social insurance programme in South Africa.
Similarly, while a compulsory social insurance scheme providing for retirement pensions in old age has been on the cards for some time, Lesotho still has to introduce such a scheme. Resultantly, notwithstanding the existence of private occupational pension schemes and a pension programme for government employees, the majority of the Basotho in both formal and informal employment are excluded from coverage under these arrangements.
Unlike in South Africa, Zimbabwe’s social insurance scheme, namely the Pensions and Other Benefits Scheme (POBS), caters for retirement pensions and grants in old age, among other benefits. Participation in this scheme, which is funded from employer and employee contributions, is compulsory for all formal sector employees. The POBS was introduced in October 1994 under the auspices of the National Social Security Authority.
However, as is also the case with South Africa’s social insurance scheme, a major pitfall of the POBS observed by Dhemba (1998), among others, is its limited coverage. The scheme excludes many sectors of the population such as rural households, informal sector workers and the unemployed. There have also been unconfirmed media reports of corruption and mismanagement of this scheme.
The retirement pension benefit (POBS) is currently a minimum of US$40 per month, which has been described as ‘peanuts’ by labour unions. This amount is also very little if one considers that the monthly rental for a room in Harare’s high-density suburbs is currently a minimum of US$50. Effectively this means the pension cannot meet the cost of accommodation alone, before even considering other basic needs such as food and health care. It should however be appreciated that Zimbabwe’s economy is still recovering from a decade of negative economic growth (2000 to 2009) and it will probably be in a position to pay higher pensions once there is a turnaround in the economy.
In the case of South Africa, notwithstanding the existence of social pensions for older persons, the exclusion of old age as one of the contingencies provided for under its social insurance programme inevitably contributes to poverty upon retirement. In view of this reality, it is necessary for Lesotho and South Africa to introduce insurance-based public pensions, as this would go a long way in overcoming poverty in old age.
It is also necessary to extend coverage of social insurance schemes to the self-employed and informal sector workers. This, however, calls for imaginative ways to facilitate their inclusion considering that they are no employers to meet part of the contributions towards the scheme. Similarly, it is necessary to vigorously pursue policies that promote economic growth in order to create more employment opportunities which would translate into increased membership for social insurance schemes.
Public assistance
While the three countries operate non-contributory but means-tested public assistance schemes which cater for older persons, among other vulnerable groups there are variations in the nature, scope and coverage of these programmes. According to Kaseke (2010), public assistance in South Africa consists of means-tested social grants to designated groups such as people living with disabilities, children and older persons. With regard to older persons, Kaseke notes that women who are 60 years of age or more and males aged 61 years and above are entitled to an old-age pension amounting to SAR1010 (about US$144) per month if adjudged to be in need.
As Asher and Olivier, quoted in Kaseke (2010) observe, old-age pension in South Africa has reduced the poverty gap for older persons by 94 percent. This view is also shared by Legido-Quiley (2003), who contends that social pension in South Africa has turned into a poverty alleviation programme within the household, targeting older people and at the same time benefitting younger generations.
However, the efficacy of old age pension in South Africa is compromised by a number of factors. First is the means-testing of applicants, which results in the exclusion of some of the elderly who may not meet the eligibility criteria. Furthermore, Kaseke (2010) also asserts that potential beneficiaries unable to visit the benefits office and those without required documentation are inadvertently excluded from accessing the pension. Kalula and Carolus, quoted in Kaseke (2010), also observe that corruption and maladministration are major problems bedevilling Public Assistance in South Africa. Resultantly, there are leakages which lead to the denial of benefits to the poor. It is therefore also necessary to improve governance of the public assistance scheme by increasing transparency and eliminating opportunities for corruption.
Also of significance in the social protection of the elderly in South Africa is the Older Persons Act No. 12 of 2006 which replaced the Aged Persons Act of 1967. According to Patel and Selipsky (2010), the Act emphasizes the provision of community services and home-based care for the elderly. They also point out that there are Draft Regulations setting minimum standards of residential care for the elderly. There is also provision for social workers and NGOs to investigate and respond to cases of abuse of older persons. This Act not only provides for the care of older persons within their families and communities, but also in residential institutions, especially in situations where the extended family system is unable to provide the requisite care.
In the case of Lesotho, its public assistance scheme which is administered by the Department of Social Welfare, in terms of the Social Welfare Assistance Policy of 2002 caters for vulnerable populations in the country, including older persons aged 60 to 69 years. There is also a parallel Old Age Pension Scheme for those aged 70 years and more, which was introduced in 2004 and is administered by the Ministry of Finance.
Beneficiaries of the public assistance programme (relief assistance) receive monthly allowances of M100 (about US$15) after undergoing a means-testing process to determine their eligibility for assistance. However, as Nyanguru (2007) observes, the budgetary allocation for public assistance is always inadequate and therefore not all applicants qualify for assistance. Furthermore, even for the lucky few who manage to get assistance, it is unrealistic to expect them to meet their needs with a monthly allowance of US$15, especially the elderly who have to contend with multifaceted social, economic and health challenges. It is also too little considering that it is far below the ‘official’ United Nations poverty line of US$1 per day.
It is on this basis that it is recommended that Lesotho lowers the threshold for old age pension from 70 to 60 years. This is not only consistent with the widely accepted United Nations definition of old age that stipulates 60 years as the onset of old age, but it also ensures inclusive coverage of the elderly in the country.
Meanwhile, the old age pension in Lesotho, which is a cash transfer scheme, has the advantage that it allows recipients to spend their money as they see fit. The pension is currently pegged at M300 (about US$45) a month. If one compares pensions in South Africa and Lesotho, barring differences in cost of living, it is self-evident that the elderly in the former country get almost double of what those in the latter are entitled to. This perhaps should not be surprising considering that South Africa is classified as an upper middle-income country and is therefore relatively more developed economically. South Africa’s Gross National Income (GNI) per capita is US$10,280 while that of Lesotho is only US$1,910 (World Bank, 2011).
However, in a study carried out by Croome and Mapetla (2007) in Lesotho, pensioners indicated that they used the money to buy more food and that they could even afford buying protein foods such as beans, meat and eggs and other household needs. It is also significant to note that Lesotho’s old age pension of US$45 is above the official United Nations poverty line of US$1 a day (US$30 per month).
Nyanguru (2007) also contends that pension leads to all recipients feeling satisfied with their lives. Similarly, HelpAge International (2000) asserts that evidence from developing countries that provide social pensions indicate that cash transfers have a positive impact on individual poverty. HelpAge further asserts that this money is used to buy seeds or materials which generate additional income for the pensioners, while also feeding their families.
A major weakness of the Old Age Pension Scheme in Lesotho though, is that it is exclusionary, as it does not cover older persons aged 60 to 69 years, presumably on the erroneous assumption that they qualify for public assistance. However, the reality is that only a few qualify for assistance because of the means test that is applied. Therefore, as pointed out earlier, it is necessary to lower the threshold for pension from 70 to 60 years in order to cover all older persons in the country.
On the other hand, unlike Lesotho and South Africa which have social pensions for the elderly, Zimbabwe’s Public Assistance Scheme only provides for means-tested allowances to designated categories of the population, inclusive of the elderly. The Public Assistance Scheme, which is also non-contributory, is administered by the Department of Social Welfare in terms of the Social Welfare Assistance Act of 1988. Those eligible for benefits include the destitute elderly aged 60 years or above and their dependants.
However, as Mupedziswa (1998) points out, assistance is only granted after it has been established beyond doubt, that the applicant is unable to get help from their own family and this has the effect of excluding some poor people. Kaseke et al. (1998) also reveal that the coverage of public assistance in Zimbabwe is low, largely due to the restrictions imposed by the targeting system and the eligibility criteria. There is also the need to point out that payment of allowances was erratic from about the year 2005 and had to be suspended in 2008 and 2009 owing to the economic meltdown in the country.
Notwithstanding the problems associated with social pensions for the elderly in Lesotho and South Africa, it is necessary for Zimbabwe to adopt old age pension in order to ensure inclusive coverage of older persons in the country. The current arrangement, where public assistance caters for all vulnerable groups in the population and treats their needs as being the same, is inappropriate. However, if old age pension is introduced in Zimbabwe, it is necessary initially to adopt means-testing as with the South African scheme, until such time as its economy has fully recovered and it can afford universal provisions.
A major shortcoming of the public assistance programme in the three countries is that it is operated on a remedial basis as it does not foster independence on the part of recipients. Kaseke et al. (1998) contend that public assistance should be linked to programmes that can build the capacity of beneficiaries to be self-supporting, including poverty alleviation strategies. There is therefore a need for social security institutions to adopt a developmental orientation in the implementation of social protection measures. In this regard, a variety of approaches can be adopted including community projects targeting older persons and sponsoring income-generation projects for the elderly, individually or in groups.
Conclusion
Though it is well documented that poverty among the elderly in Lesotho and South Africa has been reduced as a result of the introduction of old age pension, it can also not be contested that coverage of the same is not inclusive and that benefits are inadequate, even by African standards. The efficacy of public assistance, particularly in South Africa and Zimbabwe, is compromised by the application of a rigorous means test, which excludes some elderly from accessing benefits. The lack of compulsory social insurance schemes providing for retirement pension in old age in Lesotho and South Africa also exposes the elderly to poverty.
Similarly, old age in Zimbabwe remains quite precarious as there are no social pensions for the elderly. The public assistance scheme which caters for the destitute elderly, among other needy groups, is perennially underfunded and is therefore overwhelmed by the demand for services. Furthermore, though its social insurance scheme (POBS) is compulsory, the shrinking labour force as a result of the economic meltdown experienced from 2000 to 2009 greatly reduced the number of subscribers and potential beneficiaries of this scheme. From the foregoing, it is quite evident that the syndrome of poverty in old age is likely to continue unless social security provision in Lesotho, South Africa and Zimbabwe is transformed in order to ensure inclusive coverage of the elderly.
However, while the solution lies in adopting a holistic approach to social security in the three countries, old age pension is arguably the sine qua non for poverty reduction among older persons. To this end, the old age pension in the case of Lesotho and South Africa should provide for broad-based coverage of older persons in these countries. In the case of Lesotho, this would involve lowering the threshold for qualifying for the pension from 70 to 60 years. For South Africa, it would be necessary to abolish means-testing to enable the elderly to access benefits.
Furthermore, it is imperative for Lesotho and South Africa to introduce compulsory social insurance providing for the contingency of old age. This would complement the old age pensions and help to alleviate the pressure and demand for state pensions. It is also evident that Zimbabwe’s Public Assistance Scheme compares badly against the other countries, which are also relatively poor, as it does not have old age pensions. Zimbabwe needs to introduce an old age pension for the elderly considering that its public assistance scheme is underfunded and overwhelmed by demand from other needy population groups. Also of major importance is the need for the three countries to improve governance of their social security schemes to ensure broad-based coverage of the entire population, inclusive of the elderly.
Furthermore, while it cannot be contested that older persons have an inalienable right to social security protection, the prevailing socioeconomic conditions in Lesotho, South Africa and Zimbabwe necessitate the need for a comprehensive package of measures to address problems of poverty and underdevelopment in general. To this end, it is necessary for the three Southern African countries to stimulate and achieve sustainable economic growth which will create the basis for some form of universal social security coverage.
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.