Oxfam Australia Intersections Workshop: When is it Welfare and When is it Development?

In the first session on 27th October, 2009, a group of around 25 participants debated the question of welfare and development. The session was motivated by concerns that development activities in South Africa may be too focused on the provision of essential needs through the provision of grants, with insufficient attention being paid by civil society to the long term, structural problems of deprivation and inequality. Related to this was the need to identify the appropriate role for welfare in a developmental approach.

In order that participants were aware of my own biases, I began the session by explaining my own views on this debate: in addition to being a right of citizenship, grants have been shown to be a worthwhile investment in human capital and thus to promote both development and economic development. I then asked for three contributions from two of the three partners that were allocated to the session, Martha Legong of Khanya College and Anthony Mkhabela from Sibambiseni. One volunteer substituted for Amber Cornelius from Justice and Women who was unable to make the session. Although the information that was shared largely supported my own input, it provided a helpful reality check from on-the-ground experience. Moreover, by using a tool borrowed from Participatory Appraisal methodologies known as “Active Listening”, each participant generated a stack of cards on which they recorded ideas and questions generated by the partner narratives. These were used for the second exercise in which the group split up, and each sub-group sorted the cards into common themes. These themes were then explained to the full group, further interrogated and re-sorted if the group thought it necessary.

Using this approach, we quickly agreed that welfare can be development, and that civil society organizations should not apologize when providing immediate short term relief to communities in need. Such relief is vital for alleviating the ill effects of poverty and distress, and can prevent individuals, households and communities from falling into (or falling further into) poverty. As such, providing immediate relief was seen to be providing or shoring up a foundation on which more sustainable livelihoods could be built. Likewise, civil society should also not question their role as lobbyists for welfare interventions such as grants. As I had already suggested, the group felt that such forms of social security are a right of citizenship as well as a investment in the future. The view that emerged in the group is that the provision of welfare is one component of development, and that development involves the provision of welfare. Welfare was described as a hand-up rather than a hand-out.

Nonetheless, there were concerns raised that beneficiaries do still need to be shown how to become more sustainable in terms of their livelihoods so that they can graduate from being reliant on grants. This could be achieved through better designed and targeted skills development, including training directed at government officials. This had to be off-set against the level and persistence of structural unemployment in South Africa which constrains opportunities for such graduation. The labour market was identified as a possible area of research for NGOs to enable better understanding of the prospects faced by many of those who are assisted by NGOs. This is especially important since many of the participants felt that the South African government does not adequately assist those who are most vulnerable to deprivation.

The discussion moved on to consider the role of NGOs, social movements and researchers concerned with development and poverty reduction. A view was put forward that these groups must recognize that they are not just participants in the development enterprise, but also powerful stakeholders who are able to influence policy and how it is implemented. Related to this was the sustainability of NGO’s and the causes that they are concerned with. It was suggested that once a particular goal is reached, whether in terms of achieving a policy change or in terms of affecting the situation of a specific target group, a NGO may well become redundant and need to change focus, or exit. This attrition was regarded as part of the normal life course of any issue and should be seen as a sign of success rather than failure. However it was also stressed that NGO and other non-profit organizations need to overcome their ‘fear’ of generating income and surpluses from their activities, and that there was a need for them to become more business minded. This was seen to be hampering innovation and the growth of organizations and it was felt by some participants, that such income generation was acceptable if it was used for the benefit of communities and other target groups. The provision of training was identified as one way in which income generation could be enhanced.

A number of new issues were identified that need our attention if we are to move forward on reducing poverty though the provision of welfare. Firstly the group agreed that civil society institutions need to recognize the value of adopting long term goals, the strategies to achieve these and what we do once these goals have been achieved. These need to be supported by research and a well developed information base. Civil society also needs to be considered in terms of whom is engaged with and for what purpose, recognizing that strategic partners are key if an organization is to meet its relief and development challenges. This includes the policy makers, the funders, the different spheres of government and the communities. Another dimension of strategic thinking is the importance of documenting impact both on communities and in the policy arena. This requires improving the capacity of NGOs to undertake research and to monitor their own impact. The role of publications was singled out as an area for improvement, especially when taking account of the experience of those NGOs and other civil society institutions that had succeeded in their agendas. Institutions responsible for leading the move to extend South Africa’s grants system were identified as a positive example.

Finally, in linking welfare and development, NGOs are needed that think big, while remaining focused on their specific mandates and constituencies. For some organizations, this might mean thinking BIG (Basic Income Grants), for some, thinking BAG (Basic Asset Grants), and for others, RISC (Rapid Income, Support and Counseling).