There is a peculiar art to incremental governance: the ability to arrive, by degrees, at a destination one was never quite willing to announce. South Africa may be in the middle of just such a journey.
When President Cyril Ramaphosa addressed the nation in the 2026 State of the Nation Address, he confirmed that the Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grant would be continued indefinitely and redesigned to link support to employment-seeking activities and skills development. For anyone watching the arc of social policy in this country, it was not reassuring. It was a signal that the state is deepening a dependency it has neither the fiscal capacity to sustain nor, it seems, the political will to honestly interrogate.
The SRD grant was introduced in May 2020 as an emergency response to lockdown. It was designed to be temporary. Year after year, it was renewed instead. More than 28 million South Africans now receive some form of social grant, and the SRD has quietly become the primary relationship between the state and a growing segment of the population. When a government’s most visible interaction with its citizens is the monthly disbursement of a grant, it is not governing. It is managing. And what it is managing, in South Africa’s case, is the fallout from its own failure to create the conditions under which people can support themselves.
Any honest assessment of the SRD grant must begin with an assessment of why eight million people need it. South Africa’s unemployment rate, among the highest in the world, is not a natural disaster. It is the predictable consequence of deliberate policy choices: an electricity system that, while load-shedding has nominally ended, continues to leave businesses and households in rural and peri-urban areas subject to reductions that erode productivity; a logistics network of ports and rail in a state of managed decline; and a tax environment that has raised the cost of doing business while delivering diminishing returns in public services.
Small businesses, the primary engine of employment creation, face a particularly hostile environment. High compliance costs, regulatory overreach, and unreliable infrastructure have ensured that the formal private sector has not grown at anything close to the rate needed to absorb those entering the labour market each year. The state has not merely failed to create jobs. It has made it harder for others to create them. Against that backdrop, the SRD grant is not compassion; it is the government compensating, at public expense, for damage it has done to the economy.
The idea of a basic income has a long intellectual history. Milton Friedman proposed a Negative Income Tax as a means of replacing the bureaucracy of welfare with a direct transfer to the poor. His version was explicit: the goal was to reduce the state’s footprint, not to expand it. What is being constructed in South Africa borrows the moral vocabulary of guaranteed income while ignoring the structural conditions its more rigorous advocates considered essential: a lean state, a dynamic labour market, and a tax system that does not punish productive activity.
The president’s announcement that the redesigned grant will be tied to employment-seeking criteria has been received as a pragmatic compromise. It deserves more scrutiny. South Africa’s public employment programmes have a poor record. The Extended Public Works Programme and the Presidential Employment Stimulus have absorbed significant funds while producing largely temporary, low-quality positions. If the redesigned SRD ties support to programmes of similar quality, the conditions become bureaucratic theatre: a requirement to be seen searching for work in an economy the state has ensured offers very little of it.
The SRD grant costs the fiscus approximately R40 billion per year. Making it genuinely universal would multiply that figure several times over. What is less often acknowledged is that South Africa is already struggling to fund the current version, against a backdrop of expenditure consistently outpacing revenue, and a narrow tax base being asked to carry ever more weight.
What is absent from this debate is any reckoning with the long-term consequences of a society in which an ever-larger proportion of the population is financially dependent on the state. Dependency of this kind reshapes the relationship between citizen and government, creates constituencies resistant to reform, and diverts political energy from the structural changes that would reduce the need for grants. The millions of South Africans receiving R370 a month would, given the opportunity, prefer the dignity of work. The state’s obligation is to make that opportunity possible, not to make its absence more comfortable.
There is a version of South Africa in which income support serves as a temporary bridge while a genuinely reforming state reduces regulatory friction, restores infrastructure, and creates the conditions for private sector growth. There is another version in which the grant becomes the destination rather than the bridge: a permanent feature of managed stagnation, growing year by year, while the reforms that might change the picture are perpetually deferred. The direction of travel is clear enough. The window to choose differently is narrowing.
[Image: Mikael Nguyễn on Unsplash]
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend