Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
23 October 2020 | Story Nombulelo Shange and Lesego Bertha Kgatitswe | Photo Pixabay
It is #BreastCancerAwarenessMonth, and women in rural areas struggle to receive and understand the life-saving messages, as much of the awareness is predominately in English, while cancer centres and health facilitates are mostly located in urban areas.

It is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and questions around the reach of awareness are important to ponder. Who is the awareness really for? Much of the awareness is predominately in English, while cancer centres and health facilities are mostly located in urban areas. The result – women in rural areas struggle to receive and understand the life-saving messages. Accessibility remains a huge challenge when it comes to both diagnosis and treatment. Once diagnosed, black women must contend with many other socio-economic challenges that limit them from receiving treatment, even if it is free and provided by public healthcare institutions.

Overwhelming number of black women is poor and marginalised in SA

Women in the Northern Cape and parts of North West, for example, have to travel to Kimberley to access breast cancer treatment facilities. Kuruman has a satellite facility, but with limited resources and staff. Northern Cape is the largest province in South Africa when it comes to land mass, and most poor rural black women cannot afford the cost of travelling to Kimberley because of extreme poverty. A 2019 study conducted by the Pietermaritzburg Economic Justice and Dignity Group shows that 55,5% of the South African population survives on R40,90 per person per day. South Africa is also the most unequal society in the world, with those historically marginalised by colonisation and apartheid still being the most oppressed even today. Black women make up an overwhelming number of the poor and marginalised in SA. When black women are diagnosed with breast cancer, they have the burden of having to pit their bread and butter issues against their health concerns. Transport, food, and other travel costs have the ability to push these women and their families deeper into poverty when important healthcare institutions are far and inaccessible. 

Breast cancer awareness and education needs to be scaled up in the black communities to also consider these socio-economic limitations. Greater focus on primary healthcare is also needed with regard to speedy referral for screening and diagnostic tests. These interventions are still largely lacking in black communities, partly because of the myths around who is affected by cancer. The misconception is often that cancer is a disease that only affects white people, and it still persists despite the growing incidences of cancer among black women. One of the reasons influencing this racialised idea of the illness might be the fact that there are seemingly higher incidences of breast cancer among white women than among black women.

In 2011, the National Cancer Registry reported that the overall risk for breast cancer in South Africa is 1 in 29 women, and further estimated that the lifetime risk is 1 in 12 among white women and 1 in 50 among black women. These figures, however, do not account for the black women who might never receive a proper diagnosis. Current and accurate research is not available on how these figures might have changed over the past 10 years. The 2017 Breast Cancer Prevention and Control Policy, however, attributes lower incidence of breast cancer among black women to multiple socio-cultural factors, such as universal and prolonged lactation, low use of hormone replacement therapy, late menarche, early age of first birth, and a diet low in fat and high in fibre. However, due to rapid urbanisation and lifestyle changes, there has been a significant decrease in these protective factors, making black women vulnerable to increased incidences of breast cancer and mortality.

Public healthcare system had to prioritise simultaneously 

Historically, cancer, along with other non-communicable diseases, have been understood as diseases of affluence, as they are related to economic development, consumption, and lifestyle. In contrast, infectious or communicable diseases were understood as diseases of poverty and impoverishment. These crude categorisations were central in explaining global health inequalities, but the epidemiological transitions of the past few decades have forced us to think more critically about these issues. South Africa as a middle-income country is a case in point, with a disease burden of both communicable and non-communicable diseases, which the public healthcare system had to prioritise simultaneously. Breast cancer has thus been declared a national priority, as highlighted by the Breast Cancer Prevention and Control Policy of 2017.

The policy notes that women who live in rural areas are at a disadvantage regarding access to information and services; however, little is said about the intersections of race, class, and gender in understanding the structural barriers to breast cancer awareness and knowledge. The poor or inadequate breast cancer awareness and knowledge among black women should be a call for concern.

Poor knowledge and awareness of breast cancer leads to delayed detection, presentation, diagnosis, and treatment. This results in a late stage of cancer upon diagnosis, aggressive cancer treatment, severe side effects, poor quality of life, or worse – mortality. As public health specialists often say, ‘equity in healthcare begins with equity in health education’. Sociological analysis and theorising are thus important for us to understand these structural barriers, starting with how black women’s bodies are seen and treated. Researchers around the world have highlighted how the healthcare system treats black women differently as a result of implicit racial bias, discrimination, and racism.

American critical race theorist and feminist scholar, Patricia Hill Collins, attributes the discrimination experienced by black women to vectors of oppression that intersect in black women’s lives. Poverty, lack of representation in healthcare systems/leadership, discrimination along racial and gender lines – all these vectors come together and make access to healthcare a huge challenge for black women. Systems marginalise black women for economic gain or to maintain patriarchal dominance, making even the most basic rights and institutions inaccessible to black women.

The exclusion of black women

Beyond awareness, these challenges also speak to the exclusion of black women in public spaces, in senior positions within healthcare, in leadership, and in important decision-making that can impact how they navigate the world. The lack of representation affects even the personal aspects of black women’s lives, such as how they experience illness.

Feminists tackle this challenge by turning the personal into the political. Politicising the personal is forcing the challenges that women are faced with into the public space, compelling institutions and leaders to address these challenges. Breast cancer awareness does this in part, which is one of the things that makes the movement so important. But is it leaving black women behind?  

While awareness might be lacking for black women with breast cancer, it is important to note that some women have exercised their agency to advance breast cancer awareness. Mama Lillian Dube, for example, used her public platform to talk about her experiences of breast cancer, demystifying the illness, and advocating for quality healthcare services for women. We also need to tap into existing structures and initiatives; community healthcare workers have done great work in the past to create awareness around HIV/AIDS. Similar strategies should be considered for breast cancer awareness to ensure that no woman is left behind.  

Opinion article by Nombulelo Shange, Lecturer in the Department of Sociology, University of the Free State, and Lesego Bertha Kgatitswe (Lecturer in the Department of Sociology at Sol Plaatje University)  

 


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