Attitudes to inequality in South Africa
David McLennan & Michael Noble
University of Oxford
Ben Roberts, Temba Masilela & Hope Magidimisha
Human Sciences Research Council
Outline of presentation

Methodological overview

General beliefs about inequality

Preferences for state-led redistribution

Support for specific redress policies

Concluding reflections and next steps
Why inequality attitudes matter

Inequality remains an indelible feature of the socio-economic
structure of South Africa
 Growing interest in inequality due to evidence that a high level
of inequality may cause socio-economic problems
 Government’s transformative social policy programme to
address colonial and apartheid legacies of deprivation and
marginalisation


Increasing prominence of inequality reduction alongside poverty
alleviation and economic growth as national objectives (NDP)
Continuing waves of service delivery protests, coupled with
recent developments in the mining and agricultural sectors

Raises fundamental questions about the nature of mass and
elite opinion regarding inequality in our society
Why inequality attitudes matter

Argument: Need for a nuanced understanding of the general
beliefs, preferences and policy attitudes in relation to inequality
and redress and how these are changing over time.

We know relatively little about public attitudes to inequality
and redistribution

Possible association with political behaviour or action: incl.
electoral participation /choice; social movements; protest
action

Perceived fairness of policies may facilitate or impede their
effective implementation

Examining and understanding recent trends in inequality
attitudes may serve as a basis for predicting and monitoring
changes in the medium- to long-term
Why inequality attitudes matter

This component of the study examined three principal
questions




What are public attitudes to economic inequality?
What is the public preference for state-led redistribution?
What are public attitudes to policy responses to economic
inequality?
A number of additional sub-questions also examined:



What variations in attitudes are there by key dimensions, e.g.
social class, gender, race and age?
How have public attitudes to inequality changed over time?
How do attitudes in the South Africa compare with other
countries?
Methodology

South African Social Attitudes
Survey (SASAS)
•
Collected by face-to-face
interviewing in Qtr. 4

Nationally representative
conducted annually since 2003
•

Gathers information on the
attitudes, beliefs, behaviour
patterns and values of a
representative sample of South
African individuals aged 16 and
older in private households
Use of SASAS rounds 20032012 with a particular focus on
Round 7 (2009).
•
SASAS part of International
Social Survey Programme
(ISSP): 48 countries annually
field an agreed module on a
predefined topic

Intention: measure specific
attitudes and opinions on a
diverse set of topics of national
relevance.
•
2009 module focused on
social inequalities.
General beliefs about inequality
Aversion to Income Inequality
“Income differences in South Africa are too large”
100
90
85
81
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
40
38
30
20
10
0
2003
2004
2005
Total agreement (%)
Source: HSRC SASAS 2003-2011
2006
95% CI
2007
2008
2009
Strong agreement (%)
2010
95% CI
2011
Aversion to Income Inequality
“Differences in income in [country] are too large” (ISSP)
100
94
90
85
70
60
70
50
65
60
40
50
30
40
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
Total agreement (%)
Source: ISSP 2009; SASAS 2009
Gini index
Gini coefficient (0-100)
80
Aversion to Income Inequality
100
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0
Total agreement (%)
Source: ISSP 2009; SASAS 2009
Gross National Income per capita ($'000, 2010)
Gross National Income per capita ($'000)
“Differences in income in [country] are too large” (ISSP)
Aversion to Income Inequality
Type of society
Type of society South
South Africa is today Africa ought to be like
Type A
Type B
Type C
Type D
Type E
A small group of rich people at the top, very
few people in the middle and the great
50
3
majority of people at the bottom.
A society with a small group of rich people at
Perceived stratification realities and aspirations in South Africa (2009)
the top, more people in the middle, and most
29
8
at the bottom.
Similar to Type B except that just a few people
8
9
are at the bottom
A society with most people in the middle.
45
3
3
100
30.9
32
4
100
87.6
Many people near the top, and only a few near
the bottom.
(Can’t choose)
Source: HSRC SASAS 2009
Total *Mean level of inequality in the social structure, scored using Evans et al (1992)
Mean*
8
Image of Society: Current and Ideal
Type of society country is currently perceived to be, compared with ideal
structure of society (ranked by mean current image score, n=40)
90
31
20
50
40
Norway
Denmark
Iceland
Finland
Switzerland
Sweden
Australia
Cyprus
New Zealand
Belgium
Japan
Austria
Great Britain
USA
Germany
South Korea
Spain
Taiwan
France
Slovenia
All countries
China
Israel
Chile
Czech Rep.
Venezuela
Philippines
Poland
Italy
Estonia
Russia
Turkey
Portugal
Slovakia
Argentina
South Africa
Croatia
Hungary
Bulgaria
Latvia
Ukraine
Source: ISSP 2009; SASAS 2009
Ideal
Current
92
89
88
100
80
84
70
60
50
30
10
0
Perceived Class Tensions
Perceived level of tension between different social classes (%)
100
5
5
18
18
5
8
80
5
17
21
23
23
24
60
35
40
32
32
23
23
Poor and rich people
Working class and
middle class
33
20
32
22
0
Very strong conflicts
Strong conflicts
Source: HSRC SASAS 2009
Workers and
management
Not very strong conflicts
People at top and
bottom of society
There are no conflicts
(Can’t choose)
Perceived Class Tensions
Perceived level of tension between different social classes
(ranked mean scores, n=40)
(1=no conflicts; 2=Not very strong conflicts; 3=Strong conflicts; 4=Very strong conflicts)
Perceived tension between
rich & poor
4.00
Highest
ranked:
1=Hungary
3.50
S. Korea
3=Russia
4=Turkey
3.00
5=Italy
6=Venezuela
10=RSA
2.50
Lowest
ranked:
2.00
35=Norway
37=Iceland
38=Taiwan 1.50
39=Denmark
40=Cyprus
1.00
Source: ISSP 2009; SASAS 2009
Perceived tension between
management & workers
4.00
3.50
2.96
3.00
2.63
2.50
2.49
2.00
1.50
1.00
Highest
ranked:
1=S.Korea
2=Hungary
3=France
4=Portugal
5=RSA
2.54
Lowest
ranked:
35=Latvia
37=Bulgaria
38=Iceland
39=Denmark
40=Cyprus
Perceptions of pay differentials
Individual subjective estimates of actual and preferred occupational earnings
for different types of jobs in 2009 ZAR, gross per month
Unskilled worker in a factory
Shop assistant
Doctor in general practice
Chairperson of a large national company
Cabinet minister
Perceived actual
Preferred ethical
Difference
monthly wage
wage
(Preferred vs.
Rands
Ratio
Rands
Ratio
actual) (%)
R 2 308
1.0
R 3 334
1.0
+44.5
R 2 882
1.2
R 4 023
1.2
+39.6
R 33 287
14.4 R 28 918
8.7
-13.1
R 41 809
18.1 R 39 974
12.0
-4.4
R 86 745
37.6 R 62 755
18.8
-27.7
Source: HSRCSASAS 2009

South Africans perceive sizable differences in earnings between occupations

Strong preference for wages of unskilled / low-skilled workers to increase,
and lower pay among higher skilled occupations

Ranking of occupations remain unchanged; fairly broad tolerance of large
earnings differentials despite recognition of need for narrowing the gap.
Preferences for state-led redistribution
and support for redress policies
Preferences for Redistribution
“It is the responsibility of the government to reduce the differences in income
between people with high incomes and those with low incomes”
100
90
78
80
66
70
60
50
40
35
26
30
20
10
0
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Total agreement
Strong agreement
Linear (Total agreement)
Linear (Strong agreement)
Source: HSRC SASAS 2006-2012
2012
Source: ISSP 2009; HSRC SASAS 2006, 2009, 2012
Mean Support for Government-led Redress
Ukraine
Portugal
Italy
Hungary
Turkey
Russia
Slovenia
Croatia
Latvia
France
Israel
Bulgaria
Slovakia
Estonia
Argentina
Poland
3.85
South Africa (2006)
Spain
China
South Korea
Austria
Finland
All countries
3.78
Iceland
Chile
Belgium
South Africa (2009)
3.70
Czech Rep.
South Africa (2012)
4.00
Cyprus
Germany
Taiwan
Great Britain
Switzerland
Sweden
Japan
Venezuela
Philippines
Australia
Norway
Denmark
3.00
USA
4.50
New Zealand
Cross National Preferences for Redistribution
“It is the responsibility of the government to reduce the differences in income
between people with high incomes and those with low incomes”
5.00
4.45
4.00
3.50
2.67
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
Preferences for Redistribution
“It is the responsibility of the government to reduce the differences in income
between people with high incomes and those with low incomes”



South Africans: less uniformity in
preferences about role of
government in redistributing income
Significant differences based on:
race, education, employment status,
subjective poverty status, and
geographic location.
Nonetheless, more than half of
white, tertiary educated and nonpoor South Africans support stateled redress in principle
African
Rural farms
80
Rural traditional
authority areas
70
Urban informal
Coloured
Indian
White
60
50
Urban formal
No schooling
40
30
Non-poor
Primary
20
Just getting by
Incomplete secondary
Poor
Complete secondary
Other labour inactive
Student
Pensioner
Total agreement (%)
Tertiary
Employed
Unemployed
South African average (M=69)
Source: HSRC SASAS 2006-2012
Support for Redress Policies
Support for different types of redress measures, 2009 (percentage
agreeing and mean scores)
Class-based redress measures:
The government should provide a decent standard of living
for the unemployed.
The children of the economically well-off and the poor should
be educated together
The government should provide more chances for children
from poor families to go to university, even if it has to
increase taxes
Race-based redress measures:
Government should redistribute land to black South Africans.
There should be preferential hiring and promotion of black
South Africans in employment
There should be racial quotas in national sports teams.
% support
Mean*
81.7
4.06
79.3
4.01
75.2
3.95
67.7
63.7
3.77
3.62
53.2
3.36
Note: * The mean scores are based on reversed scales where 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither nor, 4=agree and 5=strongly
agree. ‘Do not know’ responses were excluded from analysis.
Source: authors’ calculations based on HSRC SASAS (2009)
Support for Redress Policies: Race
Race
Black
(A) Race-based redress measures:
1. Land reform
2. Affirmative action
3. Sports quotas
4. Apartheid compensation
(B) Class-based redress measures:
5. Support for unemployed
6. School integration
7. Tertiary education opportunities for poor
8. Satisfaction with social grant provision
9. Increased social grant spending
10. Progressive taxation
Source: HSRC SASAS 2003-2012, pooled data.
White
Diff. high
to low
Coloured
Indian
80
76
63
74
32
29
40
37
31
27
45
24
17
16
23
20
63
60
40
54
84
77
78
77
68
67
79
75
78
54
67
65
82
83
45
54
53
64
65
69
62
34
50
51
19
14
33
43
18
16
Support for Redress Policies: Class
Class
(A) Race-based redress measures:
1. Land reform
2. Affirmative action
3. Sports quotas
4. Apartheid compensation
(B) Class-based redress measures:
5. Support for unemployed
6. School integration
7. Tertiary education opportunities for poor
8. Satisfaction with social grant provision
9. Increased social grant spending
10. Progressive taxation
Source: HSRC SASAS 2003-2012, pooled data.
Poor
Just
getting by
Diff. high
to low
Non-poor
76
72
62
71
69
66
57
65
53
51
49
48
23
21
13
23
89
76
85
72
76
70
82
78
75
74
65
67
74
74
67
63
57
59
15
4
18
11
19
11
Support for Redress Policies: Cohort
differences within race groups
Black
Coloured
Indian
White
Cohort differences:
16-19 years
20-29 years
30-49 years
50+ years
16-19 years
20-29 years
30-49 years
50+ years
16-19 years
20-29 years
30-49 years
50+ years
16-19 years
20-29 years
30-49 years
50+ years
Source: HSRC SASAS 2003-2012, pooled data.
Land
reform
77**
80
80
81
33n.s.
34
31
31
32n.s.
32
29
33
16**
13
17
20
Affirmative
action
73**
77
76
78
36**
33
29
26
27n.s.
28
26
28
16n.s.
17
16
15
Sports
quotas
60**
66
63
62
46**
42
40
37
58**
44
47
42
25n.s.
23
24
21
Unempl
support
85n.s.
84
84
83
79n.s.
79
79
80
84n.s.
83
80
86
64n.s.
72
63
64
School
Grant
integration satisfaction
77n.s.
80n.s.
78
78
77
77
77
77
80**
63**
75
57
76
50
72
53
76*
69**
82
53
84
55
84
50
78**
45**
69
34
66
35
70
33
Support for Redress Policies: Class
differences within race groups
Black
Coloured
Indian
White
Class differences:
Poor
Just getting by
Non-poor
Poor
Just getting by
Non-poor
Poor
Just getting by
Non-poor
Poor
Just getting by
Non-poor
Source: HSRC SASAS 2003-2012, pooled data.
Land
reform
82**
80
76
33n.s.
31
32
46**
33
27
16n.s.
18
17
Affirmative
action
78**
76
73
32n.s.
29
28
36**
28
25
14n.s.
15
16
Sports
quotas
66**
62
61
39n.s.
40
40
51*
43
45
23*
20
23
Unempl
support
89**
84
77
86**
80
75
88**
88
79
68n.s.
67
64
School
Grant
integration satisfaction
77**
74**
79
80
76
77
72*
50*
76
55
76
54
76**
62**
86
59
82
50
64**
34*
72
31
69
35
Concluding reflections
Conclusions (1)

Considerable - and unwavering - public concern with economic
inequality in country



Acute awareness of inequality, and a strong preference for a more
equitable social structure, especially in relation to the labour market.
Majority support for state action to reduce inequality, despite
declining trend
Confirmatory evidence for a principle-implementation gap:

Redress policy support lags behind general support for social justice

Greater opposition for policies that are more race-preferential in nature
relative to those designed more as anti-poverty measures.

Links to current debate about race-based versus class-based redress
Conclusions (2)

Signs of generational change:


‘Born Free’ generation seem to exhibit similar ideological preferences to
redress as older cohorts in relation to redistributive policies
Firmer basis for a social compact about preferences for
interventions designed to produce a more just society than
typically assumed.

South Africans may not fully agree on specific elements comprising a
socially just response to persistently high levels of inequality....

Yet, common recognition of and concern with injustice AND a broadbased commitment to government redistribution and class-based social
policies....

This could serve as a solid foundation on which to promote social
solidarity and forge progress towards a more equitable society.
Next Steps




Final phase of the analysis is underway

Dataset has been produced into which exposure measures have
been merged with SASAS 2009 data

Currently working with Oxford University Department of Statistics on
multi-level models to examine the associations between exposure
and inequality attitudes among the poor and non-poor
Academic papers prepared and submitted linked to the spatial
inequality and attitudes to inequality components of the project
Project report will be made freely available
Project is demonstrating the value of South African datasets and
added value of linking them together for policy research purposes.
David McLennan (Oxford):
david.mclennan@spi.ox.ac.uk
Ben Roberts (HSRC):
BRoberts@hsrc.ac.za