1. Abstract
This study traces the development of the welfare state in Mauritius and South Africa from the
early 1900s until the present, with specific reference made to the non-contributory old-age
pension scheme. It seeks to understand the intersections between big capital, the state and
broad-based social forces in heralding different welfare outcomes in the two countries.
Mauritius has retained its long-standing traditions as a social democratic welfare state
stretching back to the late 1950s. In contrast, the current welfare model of South Africa
continues to be the embodiment of the liberal welfare state, similar to that of the ancien
regime set up in 1928, even though it has maintained a generous social grants system since the
advent of democracy in 1994.
As a result it is important to unravel patterns of historical evolution that are responsible
for different welfare outcomes in seemingly identical socio-political contexts. Similarly, it is
important to scratch below the surface of these historical patterns of evolution to account for
these disparate welfare frameworks which, nonetheless, exhibit identical outcomes in the
social security sector in terms of their unfaltering commitment to old-age pensions. To this end
the dissertation employs the comparative historical analysis approach in a bid to draw cross-
national parallels between the social processes that unfolded and consequently underpinned
development paradigms over time.
This study suggests that accounting for the divergent policy outcomes is the
disproportionate powers being wielded by neoliberal market forces within the main arteries of
the South African economy, which hindered the state from defining the policy direction of its
welfare framework to dovetail with expansive social reforms. This restraint was compounded
by the left as a 'labour aristocracy', whose alliance with the political ruling class compromised
their ability to champion the pro-poor agenda with as much vigour as they would have if they
had pursued an independent course. This is a far cry from the welfare trajectory of Mauritius, in
which a mutual understanding between the state, cross-class movements and capitalist market
forces bridged contesting class interests by reconciling market economics with social
fundamentals.

2. Unlike in South Africa, the independence of the working classes in Mauritius – whose
mobilising traditions cut across the class spectrum – has added special impetus to the social
reform movement, having served as the bulwark against welfare retrenchments and/or less
egalitarian reforms in the past. That the universal pension scheme and the state’s commitment
to the pro-poor cause remain intact in Mauritius is a result of these pro-active class
contestations. On the other hand, the absence of the balance of power struck between social
actors and the economic élite in South Africa propelled a class compromise that allowed for the
dominance of pensions to come at the cost of extensive social reforms. Such outcomes would
not have come into effect in South Africa had the playing field for all relevant stakeholders been
level, as in Mauritius.