The usual response of municipal mayors and mayoral committee members to complaints (and non-violent protests) about infrastructure decay and poor services is to dismiss them. Residents grievances are treated under the assumption that they emanate from a point of privilege and are of little concern given he challenges municipalities face. To a large extent residents, despite being aggrieved by municipal failures, accept this narrative and defer their demands under the assumption that the poor and under-serviced areas do benefit from the reallocation of resources away from the “suburbs”. This narrative seeks to identify if such a redistribution of revenue does take place in areas like Johannesburg.
In South Africa the initial bedrock of political and economic “transformation” was the provision of free basic services to the indigent and to areas under-serviced by the previous regime. Policies were implemented to ensure there all were able basic water, electricity and waste removal services irrespective of their ability to pay for them. While these services are delivered by local government they are largely funded by financial allocations from the national fiscus. Municipalities’ primary source of funding for providing free services to the indigent is the Equitable Share Grant (ESG). In Johannesburg the mechanism for providing free basic services (FBS) is the Expanded Social Package (ESP). The levels of ESP services provided to households is based on their ability to pay as well other criteria like age and disability.
Estimates indicate that one-third to over-half the 5-million people living in Johannesburg fall below various poverty lines and in terms of income, qualify as “indigent”. However to benefit from Free Basic Services poor households in Johannesburg have to register for ESP and meet criteria other than low income. To receive the full allocation of FBS (water, electricity, refuse removal etc.) indigent households have to get more than 70/100 points on the city’s poverty index. However the city does not reveal how the poverty index is calculated.
It seems that for households to as indigent individual members have to earn less than R7 503 each month and the area they live in also has to meet additional deprivation characteristics. The more multi-dimensional the poverty characteristics are the higher the household poverty index score. However the lack of clarity as to how the poverty indices are calculated, onerous registration requirements and bureaucratic intransigence have resulted in poor (and declining) registration of indigent households.
In 2014 some 288 000 households were registered as “indigent” by the city. The number falls far short of the over 600 000 households deemed living below the lower bound poverty line. In 2014 only about 15 percent of the population were “indigent” as benefited for free services – well below the 37% of the population thought to be in extreme poverty. However by 2023 the number of registered indigent had almost totally collapsed. In 2013 (the latest date for statistics) only 22 500 households were registered as indigent – a 93 percent collapse from the 2014 figure.
Billions in Poverty Relief, But Almost No Relief for the Poor
Statistics South Africa (StatsSA) shows that less than one-in-fifty Johannesburg households in Johannesburg are registered as indigent and receive the associated benefits. Clearly the city is not seeking to deliver services in accordance with the objectives of , inter alia, the Equitable Share Grant. Over and above the massive mismatch between the number of households living in poverty and the number on the “indigent register” the published figures tend to overstate the city’s commitment to addressing basic needs. Generally speaking the indigent are entitled to the four basic services (water, electricity, sanitation services and refuse removal) but in Johannesburg only about one-third of the indigent receive the free basic allocation of electricity. This indicates that one-quarter of the registered indigent receive all four of the services. By contrast in Cape Town the registered indigent routinely receive all four services. In eThekwini the situation reflects that of Johannesburg with only a quarter of the indigent receiving all four services. However almost a million eThekwini households are registered as indigent – a figure 40 times that of South Africa;s most populous city, Johannesburg.
The ESG grant is “intended to ensure that no one in South Africa shall go without their basic needs being met” and Johannesburg receives an allocation of approximately R7-billion each year to meet
this need. Obviously only a miniscule fraction of the R7-billion is needed to fund services to the registered indigent. Clearly the city’s attempts to addressing the needs of the poor is inadequate and poor service delivery in suburbs etc. cannot be attributed to the redirection of resources to the poor.
However analysis of survey and other financial data shows that a large proportion of Johannesburg households do receive municipal services they do not pay for. However access to these services falls outside the regulatory environment established for the indigent. By ignoring the role of registration for indigent benefits the city lost control over who can access free municipal services. As much as one-third of non-indigent households in the city seem to receive municipal services that they do not pay for.
It would seem that there are multiple dimensions to the application of Johannesburg’s indigent policy:
1) the city fails to ensure that the indigent benefit from the free basic allocation and,
2) the city has failed to ensure that only the indigent benefit from free basic services.
Poor management of revenue collection and revenue collection makes a noticeable impact on municipal management. This has resulted in the widespread urban decay, inadequate capital investment and a disgruntled tax base while the indigent are ignored.
GeoScope is a research survey and geospatial services company that can help cities like Johannesburg’s to deliver Free Basic Services by combining spatial analytics with targeted research surveys to identify underserved indigent households and track service delivery gaps. Through its expertise in geospatial services, it can map and audit the match between registered beneficiaries and actual service access, while surveys provide ground-level insights into registration barriers and lived experiences.
Michael O’Donovan is a data analyst specializing in large-scale socio-economic and political datasets. He uses advanced statistical methods and open-source tools to uncover insights on crime, inequality, and hidden populations in South Africa. His work supports evidence-based decision-making for public and research institutions.
