Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
10 December 2020 | Story Gcina Mtengwane and Andiswa Khumalo | Photo Scott sa ha Molefe (Scott Photography)
Gcina Mtengwane and Andiswa Khumalo
Gcina Mtengwane and Andiswa Khumalo believe economic vulnerability of women is a cause and a propellant of gender-based violence.

Gender-based violence can be understood as violence that is perpetuated as a result of normative role expectations associated with gender, power, and culture. It takes different forms. The most common forms are physical, emotional, psychological, verbal, domestic and socio-economic violence, to mention a few.

It is a profound, widespread, and pressing matter in South Africa and beyond its borders. In its entirety, gender-based violence is a threat to the economy, society, and humanity, as it creates emotional, social, and economic unrest that prohibits the growth and success of individuals, families, communities, and society as a whole. More than 30% of women in South Africa suffer from gender-based violence in the form of harassment, rape, femicide or domestic violence. Although women and young girls are the worst affected by gender-based violence, the term and act apply to both genders, including men and young boys.

Economic vulnerability of women

Notwithstanding the fact that gender-based violence happens to both genders, it is worth noting that women are the worst affected. There is a myriad of reasons for this. This article puts its focus on the economic vulnerability of women as both a cause and a propellant of gender-based violence. What we argue here is that there are structural socio-economic differentials that create and perpetuate the vulnerability of women to gender-based violence. We further posit that unless these vulnerabilities are addressed, gender-based violence will be a persistent problem for generations to come.

Our starting point is that women in South Africa generally have a higher unemployment rate than men. Additional to this, women struggle to ascertain livelihoods outside employment. This means that even in cases where women are employed, they will earn less than men. Furthermore, women also struggle to succeed in entrepreneurship. This can be associated with the ‘unpaid normative duties’ of child-rearing and household maintenance. This makes them vulnerable to abuse, as they cannot exercise their independent social and economic existence outside the confines and control of the male partner. It is worth noting that black African women are the most vulnerable, with an unemployment rate of more than 30%.

More worrying is that more than four out of every ten young females (15-34) are not in employment, education, or training (NEET). This further exacerbates the vulnerability context across all ages. Females consistently record a higher headcount; however, they remain behind in social, political, economic, and cultural matters. To amplify this, Statistics SA (2020) reports that 39,2% of female-headed households in South Africa do not have an employed member of the household.

Another point of concern is that there is a ‘social class and income link’ associated with gender-based violence. Gender-based violence is more prevalent among less-educated women than those with secondary education or higher. Additional to this, wealth/income is a key factor in the prevalence of gender-based violence. To that end, Statistics SA (2020) reported that the prevalence of physical and sexual violence decreased with the wealth quintile. In other words, the higher the wealth/income, the lower the prevalence of gender-based violence.

Overcoming economic vulnerability

Over and above all of this, the bigger question is, ‘how do we overcome the economic vulnerability that subjects poor women to gender-based violence?’ Here are a few contemplations:
1) Empowerment of women and economic justice. It may be good to take more deliberate and decisive action to capacitate women to a point where they are able to support their own livelihoods outside of economic dependence on a male.
2) Unlearning the outdated gender roles. Research suggests that more and more women are exiting the ‘nurturing and child-rearing’ role. This is because of the rising cost of living. Technology has made paid work less labour intensive. This then eliminates physical traits as a requirement for high-paying employment opportunities.
3) Socio-cultural re-engineering. This speaks to unlearning outdated cultural norms and dictates. While noting that every society, ethnic group, and culture has gender role expectations, these can also change over time. Perhaps now is the time for those expectations to change. If its existence is tantamount to abuse and even death, then certainly we need to unlearn the toxic and outdated and learn the forward-looking and solidarity-inducing doctrine.
4) Women as spearheads in women’s issues to inform legislation, policy, and practice. As the adage goes, ‘one is the master of your own condition’. This means that a person’s awareness of her/his condition allows them to be better suited to make the best inputs to liberate herself and those in like conditions.  

A lot more than what we suggest can be done to uplift women from the economic vulnerability that subjects them to gender-based violence in the household and elsewhere. We do not hold a monopoly on gender-based violence and the solutions therein. Our only hope is to spark a conversation that will contribute to feasible real-life solutions to one of our biggest and far-reaching challenges as a nation – gender-based violence and its socio-economic roots.

News Archive

Inaugural lecture: Prof. Phillipe Burger
2007-11-26

 

Attending the lecture were, from the left: Prof. Tienie Crous (Dean of the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences at the UFS), Prof. Phillipe Burger (Departmental Chairperson of the Department of Economics at the UFS), and Prof. Frederick Fourie (Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS).
Photo: Stephen Collet

 
A summary of an inaugural lecture presented by Prof. Phillipe Burger on the topic: “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

South African business cycle shows reduction in volatility

Better monetary policy and improvements in the financial sector that place less liquidity constraints on individuals is one of the main reasons for the reduction in the volatility of the South African economy. The improvement in access to the financial sector also enables individuals to manage their debt better.

These are some of the findings in an analysis on the volatility of the South African business cycle done by Prof. Philippe Burger, Departmental Chairperson of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Department of Economics.

Prof. Burger delivered his inaugural lecture last night (22 November 2007) on the Main Campus in Bloemfontein on the topic “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

In his lecture, Prof. Burger emphasised a few key aspects of the South African business cycle and indicated how it changed during the periods 1960-1976, 1976-1994 en 1994-2006.

With the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as an indicator of the business cycle, the analysis identified the variables that showed the highest correlation with the GDP. During the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006, these included durable consumption, manufacturing investment, private sector investment, as well as investment in machinery and non-residential buildings. Other variables that also show a high correlation with the GDP are imports, non-durable consumption, investment in the financial services sector, investment by general government, as well as investment in residential buildings.

Prof. Burger’s analysis also shows that changes in durable consumption, investment in the manufacturing sector, investment in the private sector, as well as investment in non-residential buildings preceded changes in the GDP. If changes in a variable such as durable consumption precede changes in the GDP, it is an indication that durable consumption is one of the drivers of the business cycle. The up or down swing of durable consumption may, in other words, just as well contribute to an up or down swing in the business cycle.

A surprising finding of the analysis is the particularly strong role durable consumption has played in the business cycle since 1994. This finding is especially surprising due to the fact that durable consumption only constitutes about 12% of the total household consumption.

A further surprising finding is the particularly small role exports have been playing since 1960 as a driver of the business cycle. In South Africa it is still generally accepted that exports are one of the most important drivers of the business cycle. It is generally accepted that, should the business cycles of South Africa’s most important trade partners show an upward phase; these partners will purchase more from South Africa. This increase in exports will contribute to the South African economy moving upward. Prof. Burger’s analyses shows, however, that exports have generally never fulfil this role.

Over and above the identification of the drivers of the South African business cycle, Prof. Burger’s analysis also investigated the volatility of the business cycle.

When the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006 are compared, the analysis shows that the volatility of the business cycle has reduced since 1994 with more than half. The reduction in volatility can be traced to the reduction in the volatility of household consumption (especially durables and services), as well as a reduction in the volatility of investment in machinery, non-residential buildings and transport equipment. The last three coincide with the general reduction in the volatility of investment in the manufacturing sector. Investment in sectors such as electricity and transport (not to be confused with investment in transport equipment by various sectors) which are strongly dominated by the government, did not contribute to the decrease in volatility.

In his analysis, Prof. Burger supplies reasons for the reduction in volatility. One of the explanations is the reduction in the shocks affecting the economy – especially in the South African context. Another explanation is the application of an improved monetary policy by the South African Reserve Bank since the mid 1990’s. A third explanation is the better access to liquidity and credit since the mid 1990’s, which enables the better management of household finance and the absorption of financial shocks.

A further reason which contributed to the reduction in volatility in countries such as the United States of America’s business cycle is better inventory management. While the volatility of inventory in South Africa has also reduced there is, according to Prof. Burger, little proof that better inventory management contributed to the reduction in volatility of the GDP.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept