Have your say
	Would you like to submit your views on this comment?
	send your views

1. "Young girls get pregnant simply in order to access the CSG". It is indeed possible that, at the margins, there may be some amongst the poorest for whom the prospect of R200 per month does tip the balance when it comes to decisions about getting pregnant, or how much care to take in not getting pregnant, or whether or not to get an abortion if one does get pregnant. For them, even though the cost of raising a child may be more than the value of the grant, it does at least provide some cash in hand that otherwise would not exist, which might be used to finance microenterprises or establish a small shop, in the belief that increased income will benefit the whole household. But, since this is a rational choice, even such cases are not a valid argument against the CSG. And they would in any case appear to be in a minority: a recent study³ by the Human Sciences Research Council looked at this issue by studying national surveys and administrative data, and concluded "there are no grounds to believe that young South African girls are deliberately having children in order to access welfare benefits".



2. "The CSG is breaking down traditional family values and support systems, by giving young mothers the means to leave their homes". Again, it could legitimately be argued that any degree of financial independence may encourage a move away from the family; but, again, R200 per month is likely to be far less than the incremental cost of so doing. Indeed, it could be counter-argued that for a young mother to bring a financial contribution of that amount into a household is actually reinforcing, rather than undermining, the extended family structure; or that the CSG in some cases underpins the fluidity of household structure in southern Africa by allowing rational reallocation of childcare and income-generating responsibilities among household members. Finally, there have surely been many far more damaging influences on these sometimes romanticised traditional values over the last thirty years than the arrival of the CSG!



3. "The CSG is reinforcing a trend towards putting babies onto formula rather than breast-feeding". The argument here is that giving mothers a small amount of cash has a double negative impact on their infants, because (a) breastmilk is better but formula now becomes affordable; (b) limited cash causes mothers to ‘ration' the formula, and this dilution results in undernutrition. Yes, maybe. But a large number of CSG recipients continue to breastfeed their children (often to an advanced age); and, even if it is true that limited cash leads to dilution, it cannot be said that the grant has caused this - the grant gives mothers (a bit) more cash, not less. And again there are strong arguments to suggest that there are far more significant factors which determine a mother's choice between breast-feeding and formula than receipt of the CSG: among them, for example conditions of employment, the media, and advertising campaigns by the powdered milk industry. We should look to a lot of other places to address the very real problem of dilution of formula food, rather than focus on the grant.

It is important that the inevitable (but often trivial) weaknesses of social protection programmes are not disproportionately exploited by their detractors. Legitimate concerns such as those expressed above need to be investigated and understood; any perverse outcomes or incentives should be carefully monitored and evaluated; careful targeting should seek to avoid cases where they might proliferate; and steps should be built in to minimise any negative impacts wherever possible (for example by linking grants to awareness campaigns and educational programmes). But we must be very careful to do this in the recognition that correcting any relatively insignificant abuses or distortions may cost significantly more than the losses to the system that they engender, and, more generally, that social transfer programmes do far more good than harm.

It would be a mistake to throw the baby out with the bathwater. A more pragmatic conclusion might be to paraphrase Winston Churchill's endorsement of democracy, and to say that: "social transfers are the worst possible way to reduce poverty ... except for all the others"!