Children should be the headline in Budget policy statement

Christine Muhigana

Children in South Africa are caught between two powerful narratives about how best to employ the use of state resources to achieve social and economic progress.

This was demonstrated in the recently presented Medium Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS) to Parliament.

The MTBPS represents the government’s effort to keep ordinary citizens, the markets, and the broader development community in the loop regarding its fiscal and macro-economic thinking and how changes in these variables may impact the upcoming budget in 2025.

It is both an accountability and transparency exercise and remains a global benchmark for budget transparency.

So what are these big stories and how are children affected? The one story, as told in the MTBPS 2024, is that in order to sustain the government’s investments in children and other vulnerable populations, State resources must be employed to ignite the economy.

A growing economy, especially if the growth is inclusive, means greater prosperity and income for all sectors, thus laying the groundwork for more investments in children or the government’s “social wage” which refers to all relevant in-kind and cash transfers the government makes to eligible recipients.

This is why proposed spending on infrastructure is projected to grow by 6% annually over the next three years. In addition, paying off the government’s growing debt, received a further boost and such expenditures are expected to grow by 2.3% annually over the medium-term.

This approach has two sides to it: while spending more on infrastructure and paying off government debt is not bad in itself, it comes at the expense of investment in basic education, health, and social protection.

And as we know, these are critical services for children. Spending on health is projected to decline by 0.2% annually for the next three years, while spending on basic education and social protection is merely maintained. Overall government expenditure is expected to grow by a mere 0.4% annually over the medium-term.

Implicit in this approach is the idea that the public sector is not viewed as having adequate capacity to convert resources into real gains for children and other vulnerable populations.

Allied to this thinking is the idea that the public sector is still too large and is not fit for purpose.

This is why the MTBPS proposes that the state salary bill should show zero growth (after inflation), and that older public servants are encouraged to retire so that younger professionals can take their place.

For children, the continued cutting of the public sector is severe because trained teachers, medical practitioners, social workers and other related practitioners provide a bulwark against the challenges that marginalised children face on a daily basis.

To remain balanced in our telling of the story, the government supports the realisation of children’s rights, but prefaces this ideal state with a period of austerity in order to gain the maximum benefits for children in the medium term.

Can children really wait that long and what is the impact on the development of our country’s human resources base?

The other argument encourages government to spend liberally on social sector services that benefit children and other vulnerable populations.

Such increased spending is predicted to have a multiplier effect and given that these resources are spent within South Africa, this could lead to the much-prized economic growth that the country needs.

Instead of searching for economic growth outside of the social sector, this approach requires government to maximise spending on the neediest in South Africa. While this approach is preferred in terms of the well-being of children, it cannot guarantee that even if more resources were to be deployed, that they are spent effectively and in the best interest of children and others.

At the outset, Unicef is clear that the full realisation of children’s rights should be the main story. As we reflect on the past 30 years of democracy, and in the context of the country today, this means that child services and programmes must remain protected, while the government focuses on being more effective at using scarce resources.

For Unicef, a “capable state” is one that delivers maximally to vulnerable communities as part of its social pact to consolidate social cohesion.

The logic of the MTBPS is clear and well-articulated, but to expect children to wait for an undefined period to have their needs met is neither ideal nor sustainable. Hopefully, Budget 2025 will offer a meaningful compromise that respects both narratives.

It is not too late to put children first.

* Muhigana is Unicef South Africa’s representative

Cape Times