Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Article 95 of the Namibian constitution guarantees the socioeconomic welfare of citizens; however, the political economy of the country continues to be characterised by high rate of poverty, unemployment and social inequality. The Child Social Grant (CSG) is a social protection cash transfer targeted at vulnerable children. We used a case study research design and qualitative research method to study the contribution of the CSG to livelihood activities of a rural community in Namibia. We argue that, beyond supporting vulnerable children, the CSG contributes to the sustenance of rural households’ livelihood and alleviate rural poverty.

Keywords

Social protection transformative social protection cash transfers child social grant livelihood rural livelihood

Introduction

Namibia’s population was estimated to be 3,022,401 people living in 756,339 households. Most of the population (50.5%) lives in rural areas, while 49.5% lives in urban areas as 2023 (Namibia Statistics Agency, 2024). The country is characterised by high rate of poverty, unemployment and inequality. The multi-dimensional poverty index (MPI), composite of education, health and living standard indices shows that 43% of Namibians are poor. Unemployment rate remains consistently high at 33.4% in 2018, and social inequality indicated with Gini coefficient of 0.56 in 2016 (Government of the Republic of Namibia, 2014; Namibia Statistics Agency, 2019, 2021, 2024; Republic of Namibia, 2017a).

Slightly over half of Namibia population lives in rural areas, with challenges of limited access to services such as good road networks, electricity, water, rural markets, banking and credit facilities, as well as limited agricultural technology (Hatutale, 2020; Namibia Statistics Agency, 2024). The incidence of poverty is more among the rural population and children. As high as 66.6% of the rural population has at least one orphaned member below 18 years old compared to 33.4% among urban population as of 2016. Ohangwena region has the highest orphaned children with 15.9% households with at least one child orphaned. Over 51% of children are multi-dimensionally poor compared to the national average of 43.3% as of 2021 (Namibia Statistics Agency, 2016, 2021).

A prosperous ‘house of Namibia’ remains elusive, as poverty persist despite the Vision 2030, National Development Plans (NDPs) and Harambee Prosperity Plans (HPP) tripod policy frameworks (Government of the Republic of Namibia, 2004; Namibia Statistics Agency, 2019, 2021; Republic of Namibia, 2017a). Namibia is one of the few African countries that are implementing variety of social protection programmes which provide social and economic support to its vulnerable population, the government has placed social protection at the centre of policy response to these challenges (Kojwang and Shindondola-Mote, 2012). Social protection is an important component of development policy deployed to addresses poverty and vulnerability in developing nations (Barrientos, 2019). It could provide alternative route to economic and social development through income security, access to social services and take advantage of economic opportunities (Dempers, 2016).

Old age pension social protection programme was initially introduced to Namibia by South Africa colonial administration in 1949. But until 1973, black Namibians did not benefit from this scheme (Kojwang and Shindondola-Mote, 2012). Namibia attained its political independence from South African colonial-apartheid rule in March 1990. The colonial legacies are still visible, and these can be witnessed through inequalities based on gender, class and race (Kojwang and Shindondola-Mote, 2012). After independence, the government committed itself to specific goals around social policy, which included the fight against poverty to achieve an acceptable standard of living for all citizens (Kojwang and Shindondola-Mote, 2012). Historically, people had ways of shielding their poorest from the worst of crises through the development of intricate social networks and relationships, which broadly revolve around community social capital (Chiripanhura and Niño-Zarazúa, 2013).

As indicated above, rural residents and children are the most affected population groups by the prevailing socioeconomic challenges. In addressing children vulnerability, Namibia has shifted the focus of its discourse from orphans to a broader group of children, including those living in poverty and to ensure that all children access education and a better livelihood (Taukeni and Matshidiso, 2013). However, despite the government’s commitment to investing and rolling out child-related services, aimed at improving children’s welfare, high levels of child poverty persist, with multi-dimensional child poverty at 51.3% in 2021, and the social protection system is not reaching the most vulnerable groups of children (Ministry of Gender Equality and Child Welfare (MGECW) and National Planning Commission of Namibia (NPC), 2013; Namibia Statistics Agency, 2021). The objective of this paper is to excavate the role of child social grant in a rural household context. This paper interrogates the question, what are the contributions of Child Social Grant cash transfer to the livelihood of beneficiary households in a rural constituency of Namibia? The data presented here indicates, beyond the protection of children welfare, the contribution of child social grant to the livelihood of rural households. We are of the view that child social grant, beyond targeting welfare of children, stimulate rural livelihood activities, which could inform policy on rural poverty reduction that could be complementary to other policy instruments for rural development. This paper, informed by the idea of transformative social protection, seeks to broaden and deepened the promotive and transformation discourses of social protection, using the case of child social grant’s intersection with rural livelihood in the Namibian context.

Social protection and cash transfer

Social protection aims at preventing and protecting all people against poverty, vulnerability and social exclusion throughout their lifecycle particularly the vulnerable groups in society. Its broad view includes the promotion of income-generating activities and social transformation (Barrientos, 2019; Food and Agriculture Organization, 2017; United Nations Development Programme, 2022). This requires a clear definition and relies on the implicit understanding of the issues (Kumitz, 2013). However, in summary, social protection could be understood as a set of all initiatives, both formal and informal, that provide social assistance to extremely poor individuals and households; social services to groups which need special care or would otherwise be denied access to basic services; social insurance to protect people against the risks and consequences of livelihood shocks and social equity to protect people against social risks such as discrimination or abuse (Barrientos, 2011; Devereux and Sabates-Wheeler, 2004).

Social protection embodies and extends alternative approaches to economic and social development in the short and long terms by ensuring that people enjoy income security, have effective access to health care and other social services, and are empowered to take advantage of economic opportunities (Barrientos, 2011). Such policies play a key role in boosting domestic demand, supporting the structural transformation of national economies, promoting decent work and fostering inclusive and sustainable growth. It is also focused to prevent shocks and destitution when it is well coordinated (Adato et al., 2020; Conway et al., 2001; Dempers, 2016).

Cash transfers are enjoying particular attention as a delivery mechanism that can achieve multiple objectives for social protection (Devereux, 2006). Cash transfers do strengthen the resilience of vulnerable individuals and help them to develop better coping strategies. For instance, cash transfers prevent individuals from entering toxic or exploitative relationships, dependency or resorting to negative coping strategies such as child labour, distress migration or the selling of assets (Babajanian and Hagen-Zanker, 2012; Bastagli et al., 2016). Cash transfers given to children are pooled within families and distributed to household member so that they enjoy the same level of welfare, often to purchase consumer goods (Kakwani et al., 2005).

However, the potential effectiveness of cash transfer programmes in Africa is constrained by several challenges such as the number of poor people that need to be reached; the shortage of skills in management, a small tax base and other characteristics (Adato et al., 2020). Although redistribution alone cannot eliminate poverty, there is a strong case for scaling up social protection (Schade et al., 2019). Poorly targeted cash transfers tend to be more accessible to better-off households and exclude the chronically poor households (Chiripanhura and Niño-Zarazúa, 2013).

The structure of Namibia social protection

The Namibian social protection policy is founded of Article 95 of the constitution which prescribe active state promotion of social welfare through relevant policies. Social protection architecture in Namibia is categorised into non-contributory, contributory and labour market policies and interventions. Non-contributory social protection is constituted of social assistance, social care services, community-based programmes and public works programmes. Social assistance is subdivided into cash transfers and in-kind assistance. Contributory social protection only includes social insurance, mainly health insurance, old age pension insurance and disability and work accidents insurance. Labour market policies and interventions include active (training and employment services) and passive (maternity benefits and injury/sickness benefits) policies (Ministry of Gender Equality, Poverty Eradication and Social Welfare (MGEPESW), 2021a, 2021b).

Namibia has a relatively developed social protection system on the African continent. N$6.5 billion was spent in 2022/23 financial year, constituting 9.2% and 3.3% of the annual budget and Gross Domestic Products, respectively (UNICEF, 2023). Social protection spending is viewed to have contributed to the reduction of poverty headcount from 37.5% in 2003/04 to 17.4% in 2015/16. The total beneficiaries on non-contributory social protection grew from 353,339 to 596,247 (68.7%) from 2014 to 2021. However, the structure of the social protection spending is skewed in favour of old age and veteran grants with 62.5%, disability grants get 19.5%, while child social grant get 18%. Child social grant that has potential to building human capital for economic growth and social progress remains underserved. While 51.3% of Namibian children are multi-dimensionally poor, only 31.6% are getting child social grant, leaving a gap of 19.7%. This gap in coverage is compounded by the value of the child social grant at N$250.00 is 14.7% below the food poverty line of N$293.1, and real value drops to about N$159 when inflation rate is considered (UNICEF, 2023).

Social assistance in the form of cash transfers has been widely deployed as social protection instrument in Namibia. Cash transfers include child social grant, old age grant, disability grants, conditional basic income grant, veterans subvention grant and veterans improvement grant (MGEPESW, 2021b).

Child social grant cash transfer in Namibia

Namibia has a long history of racial and political discrimination, resulting in a systematically exploitative labour market for black people, a legacy that persists in the country’s socioeconomic landscape (Majozi, 2022). Since the 1990s, Namibia established a long-functioning social grant system, providing income support for families with children through cash transfer programmes (Chinyoka, 2019). The CSG initiative is integrated with the National Development Plan, with a focus on eliminating child poverty and improving the well-being of children, particularly the most vulnerable (Nshimyimana and Rabie, 2024). Namibia has made a great progress in expanding the child social grants system for orphans and vulnerable children (OVC). The growing number of OVCs, primarily due to HIV/AIDS, and rising household poverty because of drought and high unemployment, necessitated a shift in targeting (from broken families to poverty-targeted) and a modest expansion of social cash transfer coverage for families with children (Chinyoka, 2019; MGECW and NPC, 2013).

The rights of all children are recognised internationally, and the Namibian government is obliged to ensure that all children, including orphans, are well cared for, have access to education and better livelihood (Taukeni and Matshidiso, 2013). The child social grant provides a means to afford basic needs for households, and it reduces the burden from recipients and children to use that money on other expenses to improve their livelihood (Ministry of Gender Equality and Child Welfare (MGECW), 2010). Beneficiaries of the child social grant have shown positive feelings of dignity and increased social participation in social life of their society (Granlund and Hochfeld, 2020).

Child social grants play a vital role in reducing the burden of poverty by helping recipients meet children’s basic needs and supporting households’ economic activities (MGECW and NPC, 2013). Gutura and Tanga (2014) indicated that child social grants improve the welfare of beneficiaries and their households through investment in productive assets, human and capital. Although the child social grant showed transformative effects, recipients also experienced negative social implications such as power relations (reversed dependency), discrimination and stigma (MGECW and NPC, 2013). Though the CSG is meant to alleviate poverty among children, some of the recipients who receive the grant on behalf of the children are reported to be misusing the grant and not utilising it in the best interest of the children (Khosa and Kaseke, 2017).

Although Namibia has made great progress in expanding the child social grants system for orphans and vulnerable children, the effectiveness of the child social grant continues to be undermined where recipients are not the direct custodian of beneficiary children. There are cases where recipients do not remit the full amount of the grant to the children’s custodians, especially those in the rural areas. Also, the child may not benefit from the grant if the caregiver uses it for own gratification. The lack of monitoring mechanism that the money is indeed spent in the best interest of the child reduces the grant’s effectiveness (Chiripanhura and Niño-Zarazúa, 2013).

Livelihoods in cash transfer?

Ellis (2000) defines livelihood as people’s capabilities, assets and activities through which they make a living. It includes the assets and the various activities through which households generate an income for a living. Livelihood strategies are ranges and combination of activities and choices that people make to achieve their livelihood goals. Broadly, livelihood strategy could include its protection, recovery and enhancement (Elluard, 2015; Sulaiman, 2018). The livelihood strategies of rural households vary enormously, but a common strategy is for household members to undertake a range of activities, with each contributing to one or more of household needs. Most households rely on the use of a range of natural resources, and on- and off-farm income from employment or remittances. Livelihood is not static but an ongoing process of gaining and losing assets, these assets can be destroyed because of external vulnerabilities, by shock and seasonality associated with the environment (Ellis, 2000, cited in Mbandi, 2011).

Cash transfer programmes usually provide income to impoverished households under the condition that they fulfil specific requirements, such as their children’s school attendance or the usage of health facilities (Chinyoka, 2019). Any analysis to outline cash transfer programmes in support of livelihood strategies must therefore consider all kinds of needs (including health, education, expenses, etc.) and household resources to develop an integrated programme approach to tackle livelihood challenges (Elluard, 2015). Cash transfers enable and promote livelihoods by supporting activities such as agriculture (cultivation, farming), animal herding and livestock farming. Yet, in other cases, social protection may not enhance livelihood outcomes if policies fail to tackle the specific factors that cause exclusion. For instance, education grants and school-based feeding programmes may not increase girls’ access to schooling if informal social norms continue to restrict female education (Babajanian and Hagen-Zanker, 2012). Combining cash transfers and livelihood programmes through effective coordination and implementation reduces household vulnerability and improves household social and economic well-being, with benefits for children – more than the implementation of one programme (Nesbitt-Ahmed and Pozarny, 2018).

The transformative social protection theory recognises the need for social equity and protection against livelihood risks. The interventions include empowering the poor to become more socially transformative and directly address aspects of social risks and economic vulnerability. This helps in transforming people’s situations in which they are currently struggling to construct sustainable livelihoods (Devereux, 2016; Devereux and Sabates-Wheeler, 2004; Slater and McCord, 2009). It is useful to introduce the operational framework by which livelihood interventions are commonly planned and implemented (United Nations Development Programme, 2005). Within this framework, livelihood interventions are loosely categorised into three overlapping phases that roughly correspond to the immediate, short-term, and long-term needs of the affected populations – livelihood provisioning, livelihood protection and livelihood promotion respectively.

In the acute phase of a disaster, livelihood provisioning activities typically consist of providing critical food and non-food items necessary for survival. The livelihood protection phase of interventions aims to protect, replace and rebuild the productive assets needed to initiate a pre-existing or new livelihood. The livelihood promotion interventions serve to initiate and strengthen livelihoods to be more economically and environmentally sustainable as well as more resilient to future disasters (Devereux and Sabates-Wheeler, 2004). In general, these different phases of activities build upon each other, in the identification of effective social protection programmes that can reach the extreme poor and make sustainable changes to their livelihoods (Sulaiman, 2018). Through its economic function, social protection helps relieve poverty (protection), prevent economic deprivation (prevention) and enhance real incomes and capabilities (promotion) (Sabates-Wheeler and Devereux, 2008 cited in Babajanian and Hagen-Zanker, 2012).

The concept of transformative social protection extends the traditional view of social protection, which addresses economic vulnerability to incorporate social vulnerability. The principle of transformative social protection recognises the need for social equity as well as protection against livelihood risks (Slater and McCord, 2009). There is also a view that social protection must have a ‘transformative’ angle, supporting equity, social justice and empowerment. However, Sabates-Wheeler and Devereux (2008) suggest that transformative social protection must address non-economic or social vulnerabilities caused by structural inequalities and inadequate rights. These transformative views hold that in addition to addressing economic needs, social protection must empower the poor and uphold their rights. This may include addressing regulatory frameworks that promote discrimination, socio-cultural values that heighten women’s vulnerability or informal norms and behaviours that generate stigma (Babajanian and Hagen-Zanker, 2012).

Methodology

This study is small-scale qualitative research, using a case study research design. Case study focusses on the distinct characteristics of a case, rather than the whole population, to get insight into the holistic understanding of a social phenomenon or situation, rather than theoretical confirmation of quantification (Burns, 1997: 365, as cited in Kumar, 2011). The design was employed to explore the role played by the child social grant in the livelihood of recipients with focus on individuals understanding of the CSG in relation to their livelihoods and from their lived experiences. Case studies provide opportunity for intensive examination of the phenomenon under study, provide depth and increase understanding. The focus is not generalisation, but rich idiographic features of the case (Bryman, 2012; Martinsuo and Huemann, 2021; Schoch, 2020). The choice of case study design is informed by the depth of understanding it provides. The objective is not to generalise.

Qualitative research methods are used to answer questions about experience, meaning and perspective, most often from the standpoint of the participants (De Lacey et al., 2015). A judgemental sampling technique was employed to selected participants for the study. The selection criterion is households who have at least one beneficiary child in Ondobe constituency. One of the researchers works for the Ministry of Gender Equality, Poverty Eradication and Social Welfare (MGEPESW). A permission to access the MGEPESW Dependent System, used to administer social grants, was requested and approval granted by the ministry. Participants were selected from the Dependent System, they were contacted telephonically and informed about the study for their consent to participate. Snowball sampling was also deployed during data collection as participants were asked for referral to other recipients.

Data collection was conducted using semi-structured interviews to enable participants’ flexibility in sharing their lived experiences. Interviewer bias was mitigated by avoiding leading questions. Eighteen participants were interviewed for the study, they include 3 men and 18 women, with the age range of 32 to 70 years old. Some of the participants are school dropouts, why others have grade 10 and 12 school certificates as highest education level. None of the participants is formally employed, 9 of them are self-employed in informal business, and the rest are unemployed. Those that are engaged in small informal business manually work small fields to plant mahangu, beans and sorghum, which is mostly consumed in the households, and the excess above their household consumption sold at the local market. Others harvest traditional spinach for consumption and sales and keep small herds of livestock. Few sell fat cakes and fish at schools, and one runs a local liquor drinking bar (locally called cucashop). A saturation point was reached after conducting one-on-one in-depth interviews with 18 participants using the child social grant system of the Ondobe constituency as population frame. After conducting 12 interviews, no new information was emerging from subsequent interviews. 6 more interviews were conducted to ensure that a saturation point has been reached (Bogdan et al., 2016; De Vos et al., 2012: 342).

The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed for analysis. The obtained data was manually analysed using thematic data analysis method (Creswell, 2013; Kumar, 2011). Thematic analysis method is used to categorise patterns or themes in textual data. It is used to identify themes, with careful detailed reading of the data (Dawadi, 2020; Elliott, 2018). The themes were developed using inductive coding, thorough reading and re-reading of the textual data for familiarity and then to identify regular patterns to code the data. The themes were developed through iterative comparison of the data codes (Bingham, 2023; Bryman, 2012; Dawadi, 2020). For the data analysis process, we used attribute and topic coding to organise the data and provide boundary for the inquiry. Open coding was used to identify themes in the data, and memoing was used to arrive at findings, informed by the themes. Participants’ confidentiality was ensured with the use of pseudonyms.

Child social grant and rural livelihood in Namibia

Child Social Grant (CSG) is one of the social protections schemes which is today widely seen as a key factor contributing to poverty reduction interventions and means to reduce vulnerability for those in social, natural and economic shocks (Ntirampeba et al., 2020). In Namibia, the CSG has elements of conditionality by requiring school attendance records as documentation that the child is alive (Levine et al., 2011). CSG yield positive impacts that includes an increase in school attendance, promoting job searches and poverty reduction (Khosa and Kaseke, 2017).

Four major themes emerged from the data analysis process that speaks to the impacts of child social grant in the livelihood of rural households. The themes include meeting educational needs and school attendance; improved nutrition; support for livelihood activities and the protection of human dignity of rural households. These themes are connected through the lens of the notion of transformative social protection, which suggests that social protection policy and programme interventions must be proactive to prevent livelihood risks and have the potential to transform the social welfare of vulnerable population. The themes collectively show the protective and the transformative impact of the child social grant in a rural context of Namibia.

Conditionality, education needs and school attendance

Majority of the children are aware that they are receiving CSG through their school progress report. While this conditionality encourages recipients to keep their beneficiary children in school, it could not be directly linked to their education progress. Many recipients are unemployed; hence, the CSG is often used to meet educational needs of their children. Tuuda and Aila, unemployed mothers, who engage in subsistence farming and informal selling of cooked food and kapana respectively, emphasised the contribution of CGS to meeting of their children education needs. Tuuda, whose children biological father receives disability grant, depended on her children’s grant, and only participate in economic activities during rainy seasons. Aila husband is also unemployed but engages in seasonal and casual work. Both women are grateful for the CSG when they said:

. . . the money is used to buy books, school bags and other school necessities especially during this time at the beginning of school reopening . . . (Tuuda)

. . . our first born is schooling far from home in grade 12 and we use the CSG to send him to school. The money pays for his transport fares, hostel payments as well as cosmetics. (Aila)

Anna and Tuyeni, both not formally unemployed also talked about the CSG lifting the burden of cost of education in their household. Anna who sells fat cakes at a school and do piece domestic work said she no longer worries about buying her son’s school materials as the grant took that burden off her shoulders. Tuye, a pregnant single mother, depends on her CSG. Their expression of the impact of CSG is as such:

. . . the CSG makes me feel good because when I receive that long list of school materials, I just buy because I have money. (Anna)

It’s better than nothing. I do not have a child who was chased away from school due to non-payments as the social grant helps me pay for the school fees . . . the truth is that in our country, the children are struggling a lot because there is nothing they do not need especially now that the schools are asking for things that we cannot afford. The children need smartphones for their schoolwork, but in a month after receiving only a two hundred and fifty dollar and the school is asking for 3 books, how will one manage? You find that the schools are asking for laptops but if one lay-by a laptop with that two hundred and fifty Namibian dollars, what will the child eat and for how long will it take to pay off the laptop. (Tuyeni)

Child maintenance is very expensive in Namibia, even with the policy of free primary and secondary education (Republic of Namibia, 2001, 2017b). Significant education-related burden continues to rest on the shoulders of family with long lists of school stationaries and electronic gadgets to access online classes, as well as contribution to the school development fund. The contribution of child support grant to transportation to school, payment for creche and school lunches was emphasised by Wright et al. (2015) in the South African context. Though, they argue that the meagre amount constitutes a form of indignity for the recipients. While International Labour Organization (ILO) (2019) acknowledge the contribution of cash transfer of this nature to school enrolment and meeting education needs of households, they caution that the conditionality of schooling could put additional burden on women who are expected to keep their children at school. The responsibility that tends to restrict women to the role of caregivers, at the cost of their independence and active participation in the labour market.

Improved nutrition

Majority of the recipients spend the CSG on food items and this contributes to the household’s food security and improved nutrition, directly reducing poverty and the vulnerability of children living in poor households. This aligns with the literature that expenditure on food is associated with improved nutritional outcomes, there was evidence that their likelihood of falling ill is reduced compared to those who were enrolled at a later stage (Department of Social Development et al., 2012; MGECW, 2010). Major rural livelihood activities are aimed at food productions or income generation for food. The CSG was used to contribute to household food security. Maiya and Vivo, in their words, show how the CSG contribute to food and nutrition in their households. Both are unemployed, but are engage informal business of selling marura drink, nuts, maize meal and sugar for livelihood They said:

. . . I use a fifty Namibian dollar to buy maize meal and sugar which is sold in small quantities at the market because I cannot afford to buy a bag as it is equivalent to the total amount I receive monthly . . . (Maiya)

. . . I buy food, especially a bag of maize meal and soup because the children cannot go to school without eating nor can they go to school without a lunch box. Those are some of the things I cannot go without buying every month . . . (Vivo)

While the CSG cannot be credited wholly for the achieved level of food security and nutrition, in view of the modest amount, the participants words indicate that it bridges gaps in their households need for food, which is also connected to school attendance because providing lunch box for children is important. Wright et al. (2015) similarly reported how women help to convert child support grant into food, clothing, education, shelter and health. Access to food and implied adequate nutrition are imperative to basic social security guarantees, which should be one of the central objectives of a social protection programme (ILO, 2019). Food intake, balanced diet and security are viewed as a medium-term outcome of CSG in Namibia (Nshimyimana and Rabie, 2024).

Support for livelihood activities

Livelihood activities such as weaving buckets, preparing distilled drinks (ombike), extracting marura drink and nuts, and collecting traditional spinach were among some of the activities commonly performed by people from the study constituency. These activities are seasonal, but their products assist people to earn money. Most of the participants owned or have access to land where they farm for subsistence. Some of them also owned livestock such as cattle, goats and chickens. According to Williams (2007), the recipients of child social grant tend to participate in the labour market. Similarly, it was revealed in this study that majority of recipients of the CSG participate in the labour market, albeit the informal labour market. Most of them were engaged in seasonal economic activities and few used the grant on various activities to support livelihood:

. . . during the rainy seasons, I extract marula drink from their fruits which I sell during their time and when the fruits are dried, I still extract the nuts from the shells and have them sold at the pay points or if I hear someone looking for marula nuts then I sell to them. I also cook ombike (distilled traditional drink) to those who drink just so that I can make money to assist the children and cater for other household needs. (Tuuda)

. . . there is no other income, which is coming at home because I am unemployed, and I am the only one at home who is staying with the children. Sometimes I collect, cook and dry the traditional spinach, which I sell, but as you can see this year it was not enough for one to collect due to poor rainfall. I also make those traditional buckets, which I sell at the pay points when I go and receive the CSG. (Maya)

. . . I sell kapana (cooked food) to make money, I do not only wait on the social grant because it’s not enough to cater for the needs of the house in most cases. (Aila)

. . . when it rains, I normally harvest and dry the traditional spinach (ombidi) and preserve that for sale and consumption . . . (Anna)

As much as recipients engage in different activities for livelihood, the CSG in a way also contributed to their livelihood as most activities they engaged in are seasonal. The little money provided by the CSG is complementing the informal work activities that the recipients are doing to support their livelihoods. Archer et al. (2023) also suggested informal work is a crucial livelihood strategy for grant beneficiaries and CSG stimulates multiple livelihood activities. There are cases where recipients use the grant as seed money to establish and initiate a small-scale business, which in turn supplement the grant money used for children school needs.

According to Ashley (2000), livelihood strategies of rural households, although varying from one household to another, have a common strategy for household members to undertake a range of activities, which contributes to household needs. Most households relied on a range of natural resource for economic support. The cash transfers distributed to poor households was found to have a positive impact on recipients as their livelihood were uplifted by the CSG received. Subsequently livelihood heavily depended on assets possessed and activities carried out to help one live and move forward. Recipients own land and have fields where they plant mahangu, sorghum, beans, melon and ground nuts. The CSG contributes to these activities by paying for tractors used to plough the fields, buying of seeds and payments of other household bills. The accounts of some of the participants capture these contributions of the CSG:

. . . I use the CSG to pay water bills at the house from where we get water because we do not have a tap here at home. During the rainy season like this one, we also use some money (CSG) to pay tractors who are ploughing the field. (Aila)

. . . If I want to plough the field, I also use the money I receive from the grant as well as from the selling to pay for the tractors because the cattle died during the drought season . . . (Veyii)

While the CSG contributes to the livelihood of the recipient’s family as cash income, it has a multiplier effect in investing in rural livelihood activities. Investing in informal small businesses and subsistence farming to improve the welfare of households are common. CSG in practice does not only assist the beneficiary children, rather, it impacts the quality of livelihood of their entire households. The support the CSG provides for informal business and subsistence farming align with the theoretical postulations of transformative social protection. The CSG in this case protects against poverty and promote capabilities by contributing to livelihood activities (Sabates-Wheeler and Devereux, 2008 cited in Babajanian and Hagen-Zanker, 2012; Devereux and McGregor, 2014).

Protection of human dignity

Seeing the transformative effects of the CSG, recipients were thankful to the government for the efforts. They showed positive effects regarding feelings of dignity and increased participation in social life of their society. This experience aligns with Granlund and Hochfeld (2020) argument that cash transfers could improve the dignity and social participation of recipients in the common activities of their society. The MGECW and NPC (2013) previously, reported that the child social grants play a vital role in reducing the burden of poverty by helping recipients to provide for the children’s basic needs and supporting households’ economic activities and other activities. In the final cause, the achievement of poverty alleviation, improved livelihood and the protection of human dignity are imperative. The ability to meet the various needs of the households is important for the protection of the dignity of the recipients. They are grateful for the little CSG’s contribution to sustaining their livelihood. The comments of Aila and Neema succinctly convey their experiences:

. . . I am very thankful that I receive the grant because if it was not for the CSG, I would be begging. The government should continue assisting us. It’s good that we are asked about the role of the grant because we may benefit from other assistance to come from the government as well as the changes which may come thereof. (Aila)

. . . I am thankful that the grant exists as it is assisting me and my children. If it was not there I wouldn’t have survived as the needs of the children are many and I would perhaps have resorted to begging now because times are changing as years are going by and the children’s needs are a lot and just becoming unbearable to meet . . . (Neema)

The protection of human dignity through life cycle is fundamental to the idea and the practice of social protection as key element of social policy. The provision of cash transfers, to avoid vulnerability and poverty are imperative. The discourse of targeting or universal social protection programmes have also speaks to the maintenance of human dignity of beneficiaries of the different social protection’s programmes. Beyond the payment of cash transfer, which alleviates the indignity of poverty, the amount and how they are administered are all important for the protection of the dignity of the beneficiaries (ILO, 2019; Wright et al., 2015). The thrust of the Namibian social protection policy is the expansion of the coverage to foster social welfare (MGEPESW, 2021a). While the objective of the preservation of human dignity is lofty, cash transfer programme could at times achieve the antithesis. Wright et al. (2015) showed a case of child support grant in South Africa where women experiences indignity because the amount is far below their need.

These findings give pointer to some of the positive contributions of the CSG to the livelihood of rural households. It shows that social protection policies and programmes, in the form of cash transfer could have promotive and transformative impacts on the beneficiaries. However, the N$250 amount of the CGS is below the food poverty line at N$293.1 with 17.2%. Also, there is 19.7% gap in coverage as only 31.6% children are getting the grant while 51.3% of Namibian children are multi-dimensionally poor (UNICEF, 2023). This portends a problem for the global impact of the CSG. Perhaps, the findings of this study show what is possible, should the amount of the CSG should be increased significantly above the poverty line and the gap in coverage filled. This is imperative because of the importance of the CGS in the social protection architecture of Namibia. The CSG is a cash transfer that stimulates human capital development in the country (UNICEF, 2023).

However, the positive impacts of the CSG should be taken with caution and should be treated as context specifics. While cash transfer programmes have been seen to be investment in social capital that positively alleviate poverty and promote children’s education and health in the short term, the long-term impacts of such impacts cannot be broadly supported. Critical literature argues that cash transfers alone cannot alleviate poverty in the long term, because of the narrow focus, devoid of engagement with broad structural causes of poverty. The income parameter for targeting also loses sight of the multi-dimensional nature of poverty (Ladhani and Sitter, 2018). The little amount of cash transfer and the method of payment could cause a feeling of indignity as indicated in the experiences of child support grant in the South African context (Wright et al., 2015).

Cash transfers programme design has been found to be lacking in transformative social protection interventions that could herald sustained changes to the lives and livelihood of poor people. A transformative intervention must include programmes that address training, income generation and deals with contextual characteristics of poverty to move people out of poverty (Molyneux et al., 2016). There are necessary contextual conditions, such as the promotion of citizens’ voice and participation for effective policies, that are imperative for cash transfers to be transformative. The impacts of cash transfers are more effective when they are complemented with other livelihood promotion policies (ILO, 2019; Molyneux et al., 2016; Nshimyimana and Rabie, 2024).

Conclusion

Social protection is believed to be a key policy tool in addressing poverty, inequality and social exclusion. Thus, CSG recipient’s livelihood has been improved as they were able to support needs for their households. The CSG goes beyond its beneficiaries, who are the children because the money received is pooled into household income for use by all household members, so they improve their level of welfare. The money received is, at times, used to stimulate income-generating activities in rural households in Namibia, as recipients were able to stock up to facilitate small informal businesses, such as selling kapana (flame-roasted meat), processing their field for subsistent farming and making craft for income. Some of the recipients were able to support seasonal farm work because of the CSG little contribution. Others engage in other informal livelihood activities such as selling food and locally produced drinks.

Despite the lofty impacts of the CSG in contributing to rural livelihood activities, the meagre amount, which is 14.7% below the poverty line and about 19% gap in coverage, needs attention if the grant is to have significant impact on rural livelihood by contributing to livelihood activities and alleviate poverty. Policy review aimed at addressing these shortcomings of the amount and coverage of the CSG is long overdue. This is especially imperative because it is the grant that mostly contributes to human capital development in the country (UNICEF, 2023).

The impact of social protection and cash transfer programmes on livelihood is often more effective when it is complemented with other livelihood promoting policies and programmes (complementary services) (ILO, 2019; Nshimyimana and Rabie, 2024). The government of Namibia should look at evolving other rural livelihood promotion policy that could complement the CSG to improve the welfare of rural household.

Social protection in Namibia is disproportionately skewed towards adults with a share of 62.5% (98% coverage for old age grant for population over 60 years old) compared to 18% for children (UNICEF, 2023). This calls for the reconstruction of the social protection architecture, for increase coverage and amount for children to stimulate national human capital development and economic growth in the future in alignment with the country’s National Development Plans.

Drawing on these conclusions, we will recommend a review of the CSG policy to expand its coverage to bridge the gap between the percentage of children living in multidimensional poverty. It is imperative that the meagre amount of the grant is increased to make more effective contributions to the livelihood of households of beneficiaries and protect their dignity. There is a need for improved monitoring and evaluation of the CSG to ensure that it reached the most vulnerable children. In the rural context, other livelihood support policies and programmes must be developed to facilitate the social impacts of the CSG.

Future research on the social transformative function of the CGS and other cash transfer in the rural areas is important to engage broader social impacts. Also, a study on other rural livelihood policy and programmes that could complement CSG is necessary to take this study into the future.

Footnotes

Author’s note

Aune Tuyakula Valombola was affiliated to the Department of Social Sciences, University of Namibia as a postgraduate research student when the study was conducted.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Kolawole Emmanuel Omomowo

Author biographies

Aune Tuyakula Valombola holds a master’s degree in development studies degree from the University of Namibia. She is currently a social worker at the Ministry of Gender Equality, Poverty Eradication, and Social Welfare. Her research interests are child welfare and livelihood. She is presently pursuing a master’s degree in youth and community development at the Namibia College of Open Learning.

Kolawole Emmanuel Omomowo holds a PhD in sociology from the University of the Western Cape, South Africa. He is currently a senior lecturer at the department of social sciences, University of Namibia, where he teaches social theory. His research interest is broadly focused on social policy, development, the sociology of work and labour studies. Dr. Omomowo is a co-editor of Journal of Contemporary African Studies and a research associate in the Labour Resource and Research Institute (LaRRI), Namibia.

References

Adato

Ahmed

Lund

(2020) Linking Safety Nets, Social Protection and Poverty Reduction – Directions for Africa (2020 Africa Conference Brief 12). Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.

Archer

Dikoko

Patel

(2023) Social Grants, Livelihoods and Poverty Responses of Social Grant Beneficiaries in South Africa. Johannesburg, South Africa: Centre for Social Development in Africa, University of Johannesburg.

Ashley

(2000) The impact of tourism on rural livelihood: Namibia’s experience. Overseas Development Institute, Working paper no. 128. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Babajanian

Hagen-Zanker

(2012) Social protection and social exclusion: an analytical framework to assess the links. Overseas Development Institute, Working paper no. 128. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Barrientos

(2011) Poverty Reduction and Policy Regimes Thematic Paper – Social Protection and Poverty. Cape Town, South Africa: Economic Policy Research Institute. Available at: https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1790962/poverty-reduction-and-policy-regimes-thematic-paper/2522606/ (accessed 25 May 2024).

Barrientos

(2019) The role of social assistance in reducing poverty and inequality in Asia and the Pacific. Asian Development Bank, Sustainable Development Working paper series no. 62. Mandaluyong, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.

Bastagli

Hagen-Zanke

Harman

, et al (2016) Cash Transfers: What Does the Evidence Say? A Rigorous Review of Program Impact of the Role of Design and Implementation Features. London: Overseas Development Institute.

Bingham

(2023) From data management to actionable findings: a five-phase process of qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 22: 1–11.

Bogdan

De Vault

Taylor

(2016) Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Guidebook and Resource. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

10.

Bryman

(2012) Social Research Methods. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press.

11.

Burns

(1997) Introduction to Research Methods. Essex: Addison Wesley Longman.

12.

Chinyoka

(2019) How and why do states provide for children? Comparing social grants for families with children in Southern Africa. PhD Thesis, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.

13.

Chiripanhura

Niño-Zarazúa

(2013) Social safety nets in Namibia: structure, effectiveness and the possibility for a universal cash transfer scheme. In: Bank of Namibia 15th annual symposium (ed. Bank of Namibia Research Department), Windhoek, Namibia, 26 September, pp.13–42. Windhoek, Namibia: Bank of Namibia.

14.

Conway

Foster

Tim

(2001) Social protection concepts and approaches: implications for social policy and practice in international development. Overseas Development Institute, Working paper no. 143. London: Overseas Development Institute.

15.

Creswell

(2013) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

16.

Dawadi

(2020) Thematic analysis approach: a step by step guide for ELT research practitioners. Journal of NELTA 25(1–2): 62–71.

17.

De Lacey

Hammarberg

Kirkman

(2015) Qualitative Research Methods: When to Use Them and How to Judge Them. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

18.

Dempers

(2016) Social Protection in Namibia: A Civil Society Perspective. Windhoek, Namibia: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.

19.

Department of Social Development, South African Social Security Agency and UNICEF (2012) The South Africa Child Support Grant Impact Assessment: Evidence From a Survey of Children and Adolescences and Their Households. Pretoria, South Africa: UNICEF South Africa.

20.

Devereux

(2006) Cash transfer and social protection. In: Regional workshop on ‘cash transfer activities in Southern Africa’, Johannesburg, South Africa, 9–10 October, pp.1–17. Johannesburg, South Africa: Southern African Regional Poverty Network (SARPN), Regional Hunger and Vulnerability Programme (RHVP) and Oxfam GB.

21.

Devereux

(2016) Social protection for enhanced food security in sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy 60: 52–62.

22.

Devereux

McGregor

(2014) Transforming social protection: human wellbeing and social justice. European Journal of Development Research 26: 296–310.

23.

Devereux

Sabates-Wheeler

(2004) Transformative social protection. Institute of Development Studies Working paper no. 232. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.

24.

De Vos

Strydom

Fouche

, et al (2012) Research at Grassroots for the Social Sciences and Human Service Professionals. 4th ed. Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik Publishers.

25.

Elliott

(2018) Thinking about the coding process in qualitative data analysis. Qualitative Report 23(11): 2850–2861.

26.

Ellis

(2000) Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

27.

Elluard

(2015) Guidance notes: cash transfers in livelihood programming. In: CALP learning workshop, Dakar, Senegal, 21–22 October, pp.1–40. Dakar, Senegal: The Cask Learning Partnership.

28.

Food and Agriculture Organization (2017) Social Protection and Resilience: Supporting Livelihoods In protracted Crises and in Fragile and Humanitarian Contexts. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization and the Institute of Development Studies.

29.

Government of the Republic of Namibia (2004) Namibia Vision 2030: Policy Framework for Long Term National Development. Windhoek, Namibia: Office of the President.

30.

Granlund

Hochfeld

(2020) ‘That child support grant gives me power’ – exploring social and relational aspects of cash transfers in South Africa in times of livelihood change. The Journal of Development Studies 56(6): 1230–1244.

31.

Gutura

Tanga

(2014) The intended consequences of the social assistance grants in South Africa. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 5(2): 659–669.

32.

Hatutale

(2020) The poverty reduction role of rural development centres: a case study of Gibeon constituency, Namibia. Mater Thesis, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.

33.

International Labour Organization (ILO) (2019) Universal Social Protection for Human Dignity, Social Justice and Sustainable Development. Geneva: International Labour Organization.

34.

Kakwani

Soares

Son

(2005) Conditional cash transfers in African countries. International Poverty Centre, Working Paper Number 9: 1–92. New York: United Nations Development Programme.

35.

Khosa

Kaseke

(2017) The utilisation of child support grant by caregivers: the case of Ba-Phalaborwa municipality in Limpopo province. Social Work/Maatskaplike WERK 53(3): 356–367.

36.

Kojwang

Shindondola-Mote

(2012) Social protection in Namibia. In: Kalusopa

Dicks

Osei-Boateng

(eds) Social Protection Schemes in Africa. Geneva: International Labour Organization, pp.267–300.

37.

Kumar

(2011) Research Methodology: A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

38.

Kumitz

(2013) Scoping Social Protection: Platform for Social Protection Zambia Policy Brief. Lusaka, Zambia: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.

39.

Ladhani

Sitter

(2018) Conditional cash transfers: a critical review. Development Policy Review 38: 28–41.

40.

Levine

van der Berg

(2011) The impact of cash transfers on household welfare in Namibia. Development Southern Africa 28(1): 39–59.

41.

Majozi

(2022) Fighting inequality through basic income support: lessons from India, Kenya, and Namibia. Namibian Journal of Social Justice 2: 216–233.

42.

Martinsuo

Huemann

(2021) Designing case study research. International Journal of Project Management 39(5): 417–421.

43.

Mbandi

(2011) Affected household living with HIV and AIDS in rural Namibia: case of Odibo village, Ohangwena region. Master Thesis, University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam.

44.

Ministry of Gender Equality and Child Welfare (MGECW) (2010) The Effectiveness of Child Welfare Grants in Namibia: Study Findings and Technical Notes. Windhoek, Namibia: Ministry of Gender Equality and Child Welfare.

45.

Ministry of Gender Equality and Child Welfare (MGECW) and National Planning Commission of Namibia (NPC) (2013) How Effective Is the Social Protection System in Reducing Child Poverty in Namibia? Community Based Analysis. Windhoek, Namibia: Government of the Republic of Namibia.

46.

Ministry of Gender Equality, Poverty Eradication and Social Welfare (MGEPESW) (2021a) Social Protection Policy 2021 – 2030. Windhoek, Namibia: Ministry of Gender Equality, Poverty Eradication and Social Welfare.

47.

Ministry of Gender Equality, Poverty Eradication and Social Welfare (MGEPESW) (2021b) Overview of Namibia’s Social Protection. Windhoek, Namibia: Ministry of Gender Equality, Poverty Eradication and Social Welfare.

48.

Molyneux

Jones

Samuels

(2016) Can cash transfer programmes have ‘transformative’ effects? The Journal of Development Studies 52(8): 1087–1098.

49.

Namibia Statistics Agency (2016) Namibia Household Income and Expenditure Survey (NHIES) 2015/2016 Report. Windhoek, Namibia: Namibia Statistics Agency.

50.

Namibia Statistics Agency (2019) The Namibia Labour Force Survey 2018 Report. Windhoek, Namibia: Namibia Statistics Agency.

51.

Namibia Statistics Agency (2021) Namibia Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) Report 2021. Windhoek, Namibia: Namibia Statistics Agency.

52.

Namibia Statistics Agency (2024) Namibia Population and Housing Census 2023 Preliminary Report. Windhoek, Namibia: Namibia Statistics Agency.

53.

Nesbitt-Ahmed

Pozarny

(2018) Qualitative Case Study on Social Cash Transfers and Livelihood Support in Lesotho. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

54.

Nshimyimana

Rabie

(2024) A results-based monitoring and evaluation system for the Namibian child support grant programme. African Evaluation Journal 12(1): 1–12.

55.

Ntirampeba

Nshimyimana

Kikawa

(2020) A monthly Spatio-temporal modelling of patterns for children on maintenance grant in Namibia. Research Square [preprint]. DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-63016/v1.

56.

Republic of Namibia (2001) Education Act No. 16 of 2001. Windhoek, Namibia: Office of the Prime Minister.

57.

Republic of Namibia (2017a) Harambee Prosperity Plan 2016/17 – 2019/17 – 2019/20: Namibian Government’s Action Plan Towards Prosperity for All. Windhoek, Namibia: Office of the President.

58.

Republic of Namibia (2017b) Education Amendment Act No. 14 of 2017. Windhoek, Namibia: Office of the Prime Minister.

59.

Sabate-Wheeler

Devereux

(2008) Transformative social protection: the currency of social justice. In: Barrientos

Hulme

(eds) Social Protection for the Poor and Poorest. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.64–84.

60.

Schade

Pick

(2019) Financing social protection in Namibia. OECD Development Policy papers no 19. Paris: OECD.

61.

Schoch

(2020) Case study research. In: Burkholder

Cox

Crawford

, et al. (eds) Research Design and Methods: An Applied Guide for the Scholar-Practitioner. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.245–258.

62.

Slater

McCord

(2009) Social Protection, Rural Development and Food Security: Issues Paper on the Role of Social Protection in Rural Development. London: Overseas Development Institute.

63.

Sulaiman

(2018) Livelihood, cash transfer and graduation approaches: how do they compare in terms of cost, impact and targeting? In: Wouterse

Taffesse

(eds) Boosting Growth to End Hunger by 2025: The Role of Social Protection. Washington, DC: International Food Research Institute, pp.103–119.

64.

Taukeni

Matshidiso

(2013) Accessing social grants to meet orphans’ children school needs: Namibia and South Africa perspective. In: 11th annual international conference of the Bulgarian comparative education society, Sofia, 14–17 May, pp.73–77. Sofia: Bulgarian Comparative Education Society.

65.

UNICEF (2023) Social Protection: Namibia Budget Brief. Windhoek, Namibia: UNICEF.

66.

United Nations Development Programme (2005) Guidance Note on Recovery Livelihood. New York: United Nations Development Programme.

67.

United Nations Development Programme (2022) UNDP’s Social Protection Offer 2.0. New York: United Nations Development Programme.

68.

Williams

(2007) The social and economic impacts of South Africa’s child support grant. Master Thesis, Williams College, Williamstown, MA.

69.

Wright

Neves

Ntshongwana

, et al (2015) Social assistance and dignity: South African women’s experiences of child support grant. Development Southern Africa 32(4): 443–457.

The Impact of Child Social Grant in the Livelihood of Households in a Rural Constituency in Namibia

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Social protection and cash transfer

The structure of Namibia social protection

Child social grant cash transfer in Namibia

Livelihoods in cash transfer?

Methodology

Child social grant and rural livelihood in Namibia

Conditionality, education needs and school attendance

Improved nutrition

Support for livelihood activities

Protection of human dignity

Conclusion

Footnotes

Author’s note

Funding

ORCID iD

Author biographies

References