Despite the general decline in #poverty between 2006 and 2011, poverty levels in South Africa rose in 2015. For more on this, read: http://www.statssa.gov.za/?p=10334

1. POVERTY TRENDS IN SOUTH AFRICA
An examination of absolute poverty
between 2006 and 2015
Dr Pali Lehohla
Statistician-General

2. Significant strides have been made by
Government towards poverty and inequality
reduction

3. • In 2001 wide dispersion of Poverty with Msinga having a poverty Headcount
of around 60%
• Between 2001 and 2011 poverty generally declines for all municipalities
• However between 2011 and 2016 poverty trends diverge between
municipalities
Multidimensional Poverty by Municipalities 2001-2016
Msinga
Headcount
59,8%
Msinga
Headcount
24,5%
Intsika Yethu
Headcount
27,7%
Msinga
Headcount
37,2%

4. 71%
70%
58%
55%
54%
54%
52%
50%
44%
41%
11%
10%
21%
25%
22%
26%
26%
32%
36%
32%
0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0 90,0 100,0
WC
GP
RSA
FS
MP
KZN
NW
NC
EC
LP
Salaries Remittances Pensions Grants Other sources None
Considerable provincial variations are notable. Western Cape (71,0%) and Gauteng (70,0%) were the only two
provinces in which more than two-thirds of households reported salaries as their main sources of income.
Percentage distribution of main source of income by province, 2016
Source: GHS 2016

5. 63,9%
77,2%
71,9%
88,1%
94,5% 92,2%
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
Male Female Total
Percentage
All older persons Older poor persons
Nationally, 71,9% of all older persons in South Africa are covered by an old-age grant, whereas the
coverage rate amongst older poor persons (as defined by the UBPL) was notably higher at 92,2%.
Proportion of older persons (60+) receiving old age grants by sex in 2015

6. Government interventions towards poverty and inequality reduction
About 3.6 million households are registered as indigent
households of which;
62,8%
receive free
electricity
67,8%
receive free
piped water
57,6%
receive free
sanitation services
57,6%
receive free refuse
removal services
To date more than 17 million social grants are
issued on monthly basis to people who qualify
the means test
About 4.3 million RDP houses and
subsidies have been delivered since 1994
About 76.2% of pupils in South Africa are
benefiting from school feeding schemes
More than 20 000 schools are declared as
no fee schools
Source: NFCM Source: NFCM
Source: SASSA and Department of Human Settlements Source: Department of Basic Education

7. Source: Gross domestic product (GDP), Q4 2016
Current state vs NDP target: Economic growth

8. 22,3 million
(down by 150 000 q-q)
Labour force
16,1 million
(down by 113 000 q-q)
Employed
6,2 million
(down by 37 000 q-q)
Unemployed
14,9 million
(up by 306 000 q-q)
Not economically active*
*Of which 2,4 million
were discouraged work
seekers
( up by 83 000 q-q)
37,2 million
(up by 157 000 q-q)
people of working age in
South Africa
(15 – 64 year olds)
ILO hierarchy – Employed first then
unemployed and the remainder is NEA
(including discouraged job-seekers).
3 mutually exclusive groups. Cannot be in two
groups at the same time
NDP target 2030
Employment:
24 million
The labour market Q2:2017

9. 4,4m
6,2m
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
6,0
7,0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Million
Number of unemployed
57,0%
67,2%
10,0
30,0
50,0
70,0
90,0
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Long term unemployment
Labour Market Dashboard
Source: QLFS Q2 2017
Increasing number of unemployed persons were
witnessed during 2008 to 2015

10. Reducing the proportion of persons living below
the lower-bound poverty line
Reduce income inequality
Increase the share of income going to the
bottom 40 per cent of households
Reduce poverty-induced hunger
Seeks to tackle poverty
and inequality

11. Poverty is a complex issue that manifests itself in economic, social and political ways
No single definition will ever be suitable to measure all facets
and dimensions of poverty
What is Poverty?

12. Stats SA applies and measures
various definitions of poverty
Subjective poverty (self-perceived)
Money-metric (lack of
income/expenditure)
Multidimensional poverty (lack of basic
services, education, etc.)
Inequality (Gini coefficient, share
of expenditure, etc.)
Used In
This
Release
Future Releases

13. Pilot of Poverty Lines
First developed as pilot lines
in 2008 using the IES 2000 as
its primary input
2008
2012
3 National Poverty Lines
In 2012, Stats SA published
the country’s official three
national poverty lines
2014
1st PTR
In 2014, Stats SA published
the first Poverty Trends
Report
2015
Stats SA published rebased poverty
lines in 2015 using the latest
consumption and spending patterns
measured in the IES 2010/11
Rebased Poverty Lines
1 2 3 4 5
2nd PTR
2017
In 2017, Stats SA published
the second Poverty Trends
Report
Stats SA adopted the cost-of-basic-needs approach for the development of the lines which links
welfare to the consumption of goods and services
How the poverty lines were developed

14. Threshold of absolute
deprivation. The amount of
money required to purchase
the minimum required daily
energy intake
Food Poverty Line
R441
Austere threshold below
which one has to choose
between food and important
non-food items
Lower-Bound Poverty Line
R647
Upper-Bound Poverty Line
R992
Threshold of relative
deprivation below which
people cannot afford the
minimum desired lifestyle
by most South Africans
* Based on 2015 prices

15. 531
758
1 138
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 (April) 2016 (April) 2017 (April)
Poverty lines at current 2017 prices

16. Non Poor -
45,5%
Poor -
55,5%
Over 30,4 million South
Africans were living in poverty
in 2015
Upper Bound Poverty Line
Poverty headcounts based on the UBPL

17. Upper-Bound Poverty Line Lower-Bound Poverty Line
Non Poor -
45,5%
Poor -
55,5%
Non Poor
- 60,0%
Poor -
40,0%
Non Poor -
74,8%
Poor -
25,2%
Food Poverty Line
Poverty headcounts in 2015
In 2015, more than a quarter of the
population were living below the food poverty
line

18. 28,4%
33,5%
21,4%
25,2%
51,0%
47,6%
36,4%
40,0%
66,6%
62,1%
53,2%
55,5%
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
2006 2009 2011 2015
Percentage
Approximately 13,8 million South Africans were living below the FPL
in 2015, down from a peak of 16,7 million in 2009.
Poverty headcounts based on the FPL, LBPL and UBPL

19. 7,4 7,2 8,6 8,5
10,7
7,0 7,7 8,1
13,4
16,7 11,0 13,8
15,8 18,9 24,0
24,4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2006 2009 2011 2015
Millions
UBPL Poor LBPL Poor FPL Poor Non-Poor
In PovertyNon Poor
The number of poor persons in South Africa (in millions) (2006- 2015)

20. 77,5%
70,3%
57,3%
55,2%
53,6%
55,0%
64,7%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0-17
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
Poverty in
2006
Children
Elderly
Change in poverty between 2006 and 2015

21. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0-17
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+ - 20,7% Points
-10,7 %
Points
-11,7% Points
-11,4%
Points
- 10,2 %
Points
-10,2 %
Points
- 6,3%
Points
Poverty in
2015
Children
Elderly
Change in poverty between 2006 and 2015

22. Circumstances vary between provinces, between rural and
urban, by population group
and by gender

23. 25,0
35,0
45,0
55,0
65,0
75,0
85,0
2006
2009
2011
2015
2006
2009
2011
2015
2006
2009
2011
2015
2006
2009
2011
2015
2006
2009
2011
2015
2006
2009
2011
2015
2006
2009
2011
2015
2006
2009
2011
2015
2006
2009
2011
2015
LP
EC
KZN
MP
NC
NW
FS
WC
GP
The poorest three
provinces in the country
have consistently been
Limpopo, Eastern Cape &
KwaZulu-Natal.
Western Cape & Gauteng
remain the two provinces
with the lowest poverty
headcounts at 37,1% & 33%
respectively.
For Periods 2006 / 2009 / 2011 / 2015
Poverty headcounts by province (UBPL)

24. 52,0 46,8
38,8
40,6
87,6 88,0
77,0
81,3
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
2006 2009 2011 2015
Percentage
Rural
Urban
In urban areas, the poverty headcount had declined notably from 52,0% in 2006 to
40,6% in 2015.
Poor people living in rural areas were not only further away from the poverty
line on average, but the poorest of the poor in those areas are significantly
worse off than their poor counterparts living in urban areas.
Difference in poverty levels
between Rural and Urban
Poverty headcounts by settlement type (UBPL)

25. 64,1%
60,1%
51,4%
53,7%
68,9%
63,9%
54,9%
57,2%
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
2006 2009 2011 2015
Percentage
Females remain more disadvantaged than males consistently recording a
higher headcount, gap and severity measures at each point in time;
however, the difference between the sexes is narrowing.
Poverty headcounts by sex (UBPL)

26. 43,3
40,1
31,7
33,0
65,8
57,6
47,8
50,0
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
2006 2009 2011 2015
Percentage
Male Female
In 2015, the incidence of poverty for male-headed households increased to 33% (a 1,3% point increase
from 2011) compared to 50% for female-headed households (a 2,2% point change from 2011)
Notable drop in poverty in male-
headed households between
2009 and 2011
Poverty measures of households by sex of household head (UBPL)

27. 76,8%
72,6%
62,4% 64,2%
56,1%
45,5%
37,1%
41,3%
20,9%
14,4%
6,5%
5,9%
1,4%
1,9%
0,9% 1,0%
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
2006 2009 2011 2015
Percentage
Poverty headcounts by population group (UBPL)
White
In 2015, nearly 3 out of 5 black Africans were poor
The Indian/Asian population group
was the only group
where the proportion of poor
consistently decreased between
2006 and 2015

28. 86,4
79,2
%
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
80,7
72,6
76,1
69,2
64,8
57,8
9,4 8,4%
40,0
35,6
For Periods 2006 / 2009 / 2011 / 2015
An individual’s educational level is closely related to poverty
No Education
Some Primary
Primary
Some Secondary
Matric
Higher Education
79,2% of individuals with no formal education
were poor compared to only 8,4% of
individuals who had a post-matric
qualification in 2015
Percentage
Individual poverty by level of education (UBPL)
Data applies to persons age 18+

29. Inequality Persists

30. 0,72
0,69 0,69
0,68
0,50
0,55
0,60
0,65
0,70
0,75
0,80
2006 2009 2011 2015
Gini coefficient
Gini coefficients (income) saw a very minimal decline over the 10 year period
Gini based on income per capita (2006, 2009, 2011 & 2015)
The Gini coefficient is based on
income per capita including
salaries, wages and grants

31. 0,72
0,70
0,69
0,68
0,64
0,66
0,65 0,65
0,60
0,57
0,59 0,58
0,56
0,53
0,50
0,560,56
0,47
0,45
0,51
0,30
0,35
0,40
0,45
0,50
0,55
0,60
0,65
0,70
0,75
0,80
2006 2009 2011 2015
Gini Coefficient
The population group with the highest
level of inequality are black Africans
Black Africans had the highest level of income inequality
Both whites and Indian/Asians saw their Gini
coefficients increase, with the white population
rising to 0,51 and Indian/Asians returning to their
2006 level of 0,56
Gini Coefficient (Income per capita) by population group (2006, 2009, 2011 &
2015)

32. 350 937
195 336
124 445
67 828
White-headed households (R350 937) spent five times more
than black African-headed households (R67 828) and three
times more than the national average
Black
African
Coloured
Indian
White
444 446
271 621
172 765
92 983
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 400000 450000
Average Expenditure Average Income
Indians/Asian headed households
(R195 336) spent almost three times
more than black headed households
Average annual household consumption expenditure and income by
population group of household head

33. 30,0%
22,0%
12,5%
9,8%
25,7%
10,5%
34,0%
16,8%
15,4%
23,3%
0,0
5,0
10,0
15,0
20,0
25,0
30,0
35,0
40,0
Food Housing Transport Miscellaneous Other
Poor Non-Poor
Poor households spent the largest
proportion (30,0%) of their total
expenditure on food compared to
just 10,5% in non-poor households.
The biggest proportion of household
expenditure for non-poor households
went towards housing and utilities
(34,0%)
Average annual household consumption expenditure for poor and non-poor
households, 2015

34. Dietary intake of the non-poor and poor
Poor Households Non-Poor Households

35. Reducing the proportion of persons living below
the lower-bound poverty line
Reduce income inequality
Increase the share of income going to the
bottom 40 per cent of households
Reduce poverty-induced hunger
Seeks to tackle poverty
and inequality
Revisiting the NDP

36. 39,0 40
00
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033
40,0
Reducing the proportion of persons living below the lower-bound poverty
line from 39 per cent (in 2009) to zero by 2030
Reduce poverty-induced hunger to 0% by 2030
21,4
25,2
00
5
10
15
20
25
30
2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033
Baseline (2009) Most Recent Figure (2015)
Target
Baseline (2011)
Most Recent Figure (2015)
Target
%
%

37. 0,7
0,68
0,6
0,58
0,6
0,62
0,64
0,66
0,68
0,7
0,72
2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033
Reduce income inequality from 0,7 in 2010 to 0,6 by 2030
Baseline (2010)
Most Recent Figure (2015)
Target
6
8,3
10
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2008 2013 2018 2023 2028 2033
The share of income going to the bottom 40 per cent of
households should rise from 6 per cent to 10 per cent
Baseline (2010)
Most Recent Figure (2015)
Target
%

38. Household size: 2,4
Household income: R199 267
Ownership of dwelling: 60,1%
Piped water inside/on site:
86,7%
Electricity: 91,4%
Household size: 4,6
Household income: R46 624
Ownership of dwelling: 78,2%
Piped water inside/on site:
59%
Electricity: 80,5%
Poor Households Non-poor Households
Household Expenditure R31 669
Flush toilet: 39,3%
Flush toilet: 80,8%
Non-poor households had better access to services compared to poor households
Profile of Poor and Non-poor households
Household Expenditure R151 097

39. Thank you
www.statssa.gov.zawww
@StatsSA
StatsSA
www.slideshare.net/statssa