Poverty goes beyond income. It often arises when health, education and opportunities fall short of meeting people’s needs.
Individuals are classified as impoverished when they face deprivation in one-third or more of the indicators in a multidimensional poverty index. The index reflects the various influences on socioeconomic class. These include housing, sanitation, electricity, cooking fuel, nutrition and school attendance.
The index is one of the most comprehensive measures of poverty. The fact that the multidimentional index captures multiple dimensions enables it to reflect overlapping disadvantages. And provides a fuller picture of well-being. Other monetary measures such as income aren’t as comprehensive.
About 18% of the world’s population are poor by the definition of the multidimentional poverty index. Sub-Saharan Africa is especially affected, with a multidimensional poverty rate nearing 59%.
In South Africa, it is at around 40%. This means it experiences four in 10 of the dimensions of poverty.
The province of Gauteng is South Africa’s economic hub. Nevertheless it contains pockets of severe deprivation. About 4.6% of households are poor. In some wards up to 68% are severely deprived.
We are social scientists with research histories in food systems and livelihoods, public policy and economics of human capital. We recently conducted a study focused on Gauteng. We wanted to determine what could enable poor and vulnerable households to move out of those categories.
We used a modelling exercise that allowed us to isolate the most relevant factors for this transition.
The study found six factors: education, age, income, working time, medical aid and being a recipient of a low income municipal support grant. We concluded from this that attending to these six variables was the foundation for upward mobility.
Conversely, vulnerability to economic shocks, such as job loss or food insecurity, can trigger rapid downward mobility.
Based on our findings we make eight policy recommendations. These include boosting education and skills training, better healthcare and affordable, reliable transport.
Range of factors
Multidimensional poverty intersects with socioeconomic class structures. It reinforces inequality by placing individuals into hierarchical groups. These range from the affluent and middle class to the transient, vulnerable, and chronically poor.
These disparities shape access to resources, opportunities and upward mobility.
Lower-class households differ from middle-class and affluent (non-poor) households across multiple dimensions. These differences include income stability, consumption patterns, access to services, asset ownership, social capital and vulnerability to shocks.
In the light of this we adopted a multidimensional poverty approach to classify households. We used various dimensions and indicators of poverty to assess the extent of deprivation and associated poverty levels.
We calculated the deprivation score and classified households into three levels: not poor, moderate poverty (vulnerable), and severe poverty (chronically poor).
Working time had the strongest effect. Part- or full-time work greatly lowered odds of severe poverty (chronic poverty) and moderate poverty (transient poverty). Working time refers to the duration that a person is engaged in paid employment or work-related activities. This is usually between 35 and 45 hours per week for full-time employment. And fewer than 35 hours per week for part-time employment.
Some factors only influenced certain groups. For severe poverty, transport access, household health, food parcel reliance, household size, and skipping meals were significant. For moderate poverty, gender, food parcel reliance and skipping meals mattered. And for the vulnerable non-poor (middle class), distance from public transport was the only additional factor.
Social grants and being part of the black population group showed little influence. Transitions and the ability to transcend poverty classes were driven mainly by direct socio-economic factors.
These dynamics underscore the precariousness of low-income households. They also highlight the importance of targeted interventions to break cycles of poverty.
Higher education, stable income and access to full-time work, drastically reduce the odds of remaining in severe or moderate poverty or being vulnerable. Medical aid access and municipal assistance programmes that provide free or subsidised basic services, also serve as protective factors. These help households meet essential health and welfare needs.
However, several structural and socio-economic constraints hinder transitions out of poverty. For example, living a greater distance from public transport increases the likelihood of severe poverty and vulnerability.
Food insecurity, measured by skipping meals or dependence on food parcels, remains a persistent marker of entrenched deprivation.
Gender disparities suggest underlying labour market or social vulnerabilities that require targeted policy interventions. For example, male-headed households are more likely than female-headed households to be moderately poor.
What can be done
Escaping multidimensional poverty in Gauteng requires targeted, practical and complementary interventions. Examples include subsidised transport, decentralised clinics, or housing closer to jobs.
This will enable grants to be translated to improved well-being.
We suggest eight areas for improvement:
access to education, vocational training and digital skills. This will help to increase employment prospects
public works and youth entrepreneurship support. This will boost income generation
social protection like indigent benefits, food vouchers and subsidised medical aid
food security. This can be done through community gardens and nutrition programmes
support for female-headed households and young people
affordable, reliable public transport. Services also need to be decentralised
data-driven municipal planning to guide infrastructure and service investments
consistently tracking progress against defined objectives.
The province implements multiple poverty-reduction initiatives. These include expanded public works, township economy support, food gardens, free basic services, subsidised housing, and public transport projects.
These efforts address income, food security and mobility. But they have limited impact due to persistent barriers. This is because many, particularly young people, don’t have market-relevant skills. In addition, spatial inequality results in long, costly commutes. And housing shortages and rising food prices deepen vulnerability.
Fragmented funding, weak coordination and inadequate data tracking also undermine progress.
