Joel Netshitenzhe
Article: Letter from Tshwane
27 October 2000
Battling with too much incomplete data
There
has been much discussion recently on the country’s
progress in dealing with socio-economic disparities
we inherited. Notably, most commentators agree
that special measures are needed to deal with
poverty and inequality.
What
escapes rigorous treatment though is the quality
of data we use.
How
far have we moved from statistical information
that focussed mainly on the privileged and their
economic activity, pretending that millions
in bantustans and the "temporary sojourners"
did not exist? This is the challenge that we
face: to join the statistical revolution led
by Statistics SA, at the same time as we search
for answers from information currently available.
This
requires vigilance and rigour. A wrong base
on births and deaths, for instance, can lead
to unnecessary scares or, conversely, to complacency.
One
commentator puts it quite succinctly: "Reduction
of poverty and inequality has been a central
concern of South Africa’s government since
1994. Yet quantitative description and analysis
in this field has been slow to emerge. The main
reason is that evidence has had to be built
up … from a very limited historical base"1.
Emphasise
absolute figures in government socio-economic
programmes and you can easily send Tshwane into
a frenzy of self-praise. Those who belong in
the past will then wonder, like the famous Marie
Antoniette, why if the poor do not have bread,
they cannot eat cake!
Utilise
a wrong base, or confine discussion on inequality
to incomes, and you can send a whole nation
into depression, with accusations and counter-accusations
that take the country nowhere.
This
is the problem with the oft-touted figure of
400 000 jobs lost since 1996.
In
the first instance, these figures are based
on the Survey of Total Employment and Earnings
(STEE). The survey covers only three-quarters
of formal employment and just under half of
total employment, omitting sectors that have
grown quickly as the structure of the economy
changes towards service and knowledge-based
industries and informal employment.
Secondly,
the latest figures from the October Household
Survey (OHS) which covers all components of
the labour market shows unemployment rising
from 1996 (19,3%) to 1998 (25,2%); but declining
to 23,3% in 19992.
The
level is still too high. Besides, the income
in the informal sector is often a pittance;
and casual workers in activities contracted
out are extremely vulnerable. But to ignore
all the other facts is to deprive ourselves
of the tools to deal with the total challenge,
including the changing structure of the economy.
The
same question arises on issues of poverty and
nutrition.
The
National Food Consumption Survey prepared by
the Department of Health (to be released shortly)
examines nutrition especially among children.
It notes deficiencies in essential nutrients
such as vitamins, while welcoming improvements
in socio-economic conditions. And, correctly,
it calls for a national food fortification programme.
"At national level", the report says,
"the nutritional status of younger children
has not improved but does also not appear to
have deteriorated…"3
Yet
some commentators, using the same report argue
that "micronutrient malnutrition …
has increased since 1994 " and "half
of our country’s children have become malnourished"4.
The
State of South Africa’s Population Report
2000, released recently by the Department of
Social Development identifies some of the problems
of economies under globalisation. It warns of
the gulf between mainly urban middle and upper
classes who benefit from the communications
revolution, and the poor who are excluded.
Basing
itself on the measure of income inequality (Gini
coefficient), the authors conclude: "Unemployment
and social inequality are increasing in South
Africa"5.
There was heated debate here in Tshwane on this
conclusion – until we noticed that their
employment data didn’t go beyond 1998.
On
inequality, this report, read with the Stats
SA’s recent publication, "Measuring
Poverty in SA", does provide profound insights:
While inequality among "population groups"
has been decreasing, it has increased among
Africans. In other words, the African middle
strata are the foremost beneficiaries of social
transformation.
But
there is an important rider: the analysis is
confined to earned income (from salaries, wages
and self-employment). "Focussing on earned
income … provides an approximate measure
as to what the inequality situation would be
without … state assistance", says
Stats SA6.
This
brings us back to OHS and other indicators of
socio-economic activity. Net enrolment in primary
education, literacy and access to safe water,
sanitation, electricity and telephones have
increased – as a result government development
programmes. How do we build this "social
wage" into indicators of poverty and inequality?
Stats SA is working on the problem. Soon, we
won’t have to refer across many reports
to develop a complete picture of ourselves.
Watch this space!
Joel Netshitenzhe
CEO, GCIS
Issued by Government
Communication and
Information System
(GCIS)
Published
in Independent Newspapers
1
Charles Simkins, Introduction: Measuring Poverty
in SA (Statistics SA)
2 Statistics
SA, October Household Survey 1999
3 Department
of Health, National Food Consumption Survey:
Executive Summary
4 Zarina
Maharaj, Grassroots Column, Business Review
(17/10/00)
5 Department
of Social Development, The State of South Africa’s
Population Report 2000, pp10/11
6 Statistics
SA, Measuring Poverty in South Africa, p83
top |
