Illness-related impoverishment in rural South Africa: Why does social protection work for some households but not others?

Jane Goudge, Steven Russell, Lucy Gilson, Tebogo Gumede, Steve Tollman and Anne Mills
Additional contact information
Jane Goudge: Centre for Health Policy, School of Public Health, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa, Postal: Centre for Health Policy, School of Public Health, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa
Steven Russell: Health and Population Division, School of Public Health, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa, Postal: Health and Population Division, School of Public Health, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa
Tebogo Gumede: Centre for Health Policy, School of Public Health, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa, Postal: Centre for Health Policy, School of Public Health, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa
Steve Tollman: School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Parktown, South Africa, Postal: School of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Parktown, South Africa
Anne Mills: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK, Postal: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

Journal of International Development, 2009, vol. 21, issue 2, 231-251

Abstract: Illness is a major risk to people's livelihoods in resource-poor settings, particularly where there are rising levels of chronic illness. Measures that improve access to treatment are increasingly seen as a vital form of social protection for vulnerable households, and central to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. International attention is also focussed on cash transfers as a strand of social protection, and on the potential complementarities between free health care and cash transfers in assisting vulnerable people to cope with illness-related shocks. South Africa provides an interesting setting to examine how households are accessing social protection measures because the government has removed some user fees, implemented hospital-level exemptions and extended cash transfers including the non-contributory pension and child support grant. This paper presents findings from household research in rural South Africa. Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to assess the links between illness-related costs and impoverishment over time, the protection effects of free health services, cash transfers and social networks, and the factors influencing access to these three forms of social protection. Different degrees of success in drawing on these resources affected capacity to cope with illnesses and made a considerable difference to whether households sustained their livelihoods, struggled or declined. Cash transfers combined well with free health care to build resilience among some households. However, households without access to at least two strands of the social protection net were impoverished by the direct and indirect costs of long-term illnesses. The implications for policies on improving the uptake and coverage of social protection measures are discussed. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Date: 2009
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (13)

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/jid.1550 Link to full text; subscription required (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:wly:jintdv:v:21:y:2009:i:2:p:231-251

DOI: 10.1002/jid.1550

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of International Development is currently edited by Paul Mosley and Hazel Johnson

More articles in Journal of International Development from John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().