Thematically Synthesizing the Qualitative Evidence Reporting the Impact of Poverty Alleviation Programs in Low-income Communities in South Africa: A Review

Introduction

A higher rate of poverty indicates that South Africa might not reach the 2030 National Development Plan (NDP) target of reducing poverty-induced hunger to 0 percent (National Development Plan, 2012). The Human Development Report (HDR) presented data showing that 18.9 percent of the population, about 11 million South Africans, live on less than R28 ($1.90) for a day. In terms of the Human Development Index, a measurement of equality developed by the United Nations (UN) that ranks countries by analyzing their quality of life against their rate of industrial development, ranked South Africa 114 out of 189 countries due to its declining standard of living and deepening income inequality (Human Development Report, 2022). Since the COVID-19 pandemic, inequality worsened as the country has dropped two levels lower on the index as a result of more than 2 million job losses (Human Development Report, 2022; World Bank, 2022).

Consistent with the statistics that are reported by global development agencies, Statistics South Africa reported that 55.5 percent of the South African population could not afford to meet their basic needs (Stats SA, 2017). In terms of the Gini coefficient index, which measures inequality on a scale from 0 to 1 (where the higher values indicate higher inequality), inequality rose from 0.66 in 1993 to 0.72 in 2006: despite a decrease from 2006 to 0.68 in 2015, South Africa is the most unequal country in the world (Stats SA, 2017). The World Inequality Report presented data showing that in 2014 the richest 10 percent of the population received two-thirds of the national income, while the top 1 percent received 20 percent of the national income (Alvaredo, Chancel, Piketty, Saez, & Zucman, 2018).

Women make up a large percentage of the poor. Compared to male-headed households, poverty is consistently higher in female-headed households. In 2015, poverty was found to be 51.2 percent among female-headed households compared to 31.4 percent in male-headed households (Stats SA, 2019). Gender “…disparities are still predominant in South Africa’s labor market with unemployment at 29.5 for women and 26.1 for men” (National Development Agency, 2019:10). In addition to gender inequality, racial disparities continue to define post-apartheid South Africa socio-economic fault lines. While the post-1994 government social and economic transformation policies improved the living conditions of many black South Africans, many still live in poverty. Unemployment rates are 30.5 percent for black Africans and 8 percent for whites. Race still affects the ability to find a job, as well as the wages received once employed (World Bank, 2018).

Literature Review

The reviewer’s content analysis of the qualitative studies under review was guided by theoretical perspectives in poverty studies. According to Bradshaw (2007), five main theoretical perspectives provide a comprehensive view of the causes, effects, and solutions to poverty: (1) Individual deficiencies, (2) Cultural belief systems that support subcultures in poverty, (3) Political-economic distortions, (4) Geographical disparities, or (5) Cumulative and circumstantial origins.

Theoretical perspectives on poverty that proffer individualistic, systematic, and cyclical explanations are summarized in Table 1 advanced into a variety of multidimensional perspectives that inform contemporary analysis and research. According to Adetoro, Ngidi, and Danso-Abbeam (2023), “a multidimensional approach has been developed to analyze a wide range of multiple poverty interrelated levels involving severe deprivation of basic human needs, such as health, education, income-generation and living standards”. The Human Development Report (2022) links the concept of multidimensional poverty with a lack of clean water, inadequate access to healthcare services, malnutrition, poor health, and poor housing conditions.

There seem to be definite areas of alignment between the South African social security system and the multidimensional poverty formulation. The Department of Social Development provides comprehensive social assistance programs for indigent individuals and families to access a range of benefits such as cash transfers, food aid, and a range of welfare services. Free basic education, free health care, and free social housing are part of social benefits that are provided by housing, health, and education government departments. A multi-departmental approach that collectively provides a range of poverty reduction programs is consistent with a multidimensional theoretical approach to poverty that is applied on a national scale to address inequality, vulnerability, and urban-to-rural poverty (Mert & Kadioglu, 2016). Uni-dimensional assessments of poverty that look at monetary value and consumption, in conjunction with broader multi-dimensional approaches that focus on child poverty, early childhood development and literacy, are indicative of a dynamic theory of poverty that incorporates most of the elements in Bradshaw’s (2007) theory of poverty which considers individualistic to economic-political factors.

Zizzamia, Schotte, and Leibbrandt (2019) posit the concept of poverty dynamics, as referring to a fluid state where individuals, families, and communities experience cyclical periods of chronic poverty, transient poverty, and vulnerable poverty. In expanding on the poverty dynamics perspective, Schotte, Zizzamia, and Leibbrandt (2018) define fluid and cyclical poverty situations as conditions where the chronic poor are trapped in poverty, the transient poor are classified as below the poverty line but with above-average chances of escaping poverty, and the vulnerable are classified as above the poverty line but with above-average chances of falling into poverty. In terms of the poverty dynamics theory, a considerable share of the South African population can be classified as the transient poor and the vulnerable group, estimated as 27 percent of the population (Zizzamia et al., 2019). The poverty dynamics theory draws attention to the rural and urban working poor as most vulnerable due to economic instability and volatile labor markets, irregular forms of employment, and government incompetence, which makes poverty a constant threat in their daily lives, hence are the largest population group that are beneficiaries of poverty alleviation programs.

Contextualization

Meta-synthesizing several qualitative studies sharing similar themes and methods is a well-tested scientific method for assessing and presenting broader experiences (Graham & Masters-Awatere, 2020), which only some research studies can provide. The overriding aim of this article is to present a review of a small sample of primary research studies, that apply qualitative procedures to report data on the impact of poverty eradication programs, by addressing the following questions: In what ways did beneficiaries of community-based poverty eradication programs describe, in their own words, their impact? How did the beneficiaries of poverty eradication programs perceive the extent to which their living conditions improved because of poverty eradication programs?

The two research questions that guide the content analysis of qualitative studies are aimed at highlighting practices and approaches that are associated with positive and negative program outcomes. A review that focuses on program impact might contribute to the knowledge that the implementers of social development interventions need to strengthen the provision of poverty eradication programs. Global, regional, national, and/or local poverty eradication program providers require analysis of program impact to reduce high rates of poverty. Drawing key lessons from systematic reviews, using a review of literature in the paper is in line with the consensus in the research literature that (reviews) play an important role in documenting and disseminating scientific evidence on the impact of programs (Hlongwa & Hlongwana, 2020; Petticrew & Roberts, 2006).

A review of poverty eradication programs implemented between 2006 and 2013 is intended to contribute to Lombard’s (2008) 10-year review of the implementation of the White Paper for Social Welfare (1997). The reviewer’s intention in presenting a thematic synthesis of studies focusing on poverty eradication is motivated by a need to provide another perspective on the progress of the social development approach by addressing both the root causes and effects of poverty.

Methodology

A thematic synthesis of qualitative studies on poverty eradication is guided by the question: How were the intended beneficiaries impacted by community-based poverty eradication programs? In addressing the research question, the reviewer sought to highlight themes and trends that may assist in reporting progress in the implementation of social development approaches.

The following keywords in the research report titles, abstracts, keywords, and text, guided the search for qualitative studies: “poverty/poverty-eradication/poverty-alleviation/poverty-reduction/anti-poverty”, “social exclusion”, “community-based program(s)/project(s)”, and “program/project impact”. The reviewer sourced relevant literature through an electronic search using the following databases: Social Science Citation Index on the Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Social Science Database. A desktop internet search formed a critical part of the search, and some unpublished studies were accessed through the expert opinion of social development researchers. An online search of research reports in development studies, economics, social work, social development, politics, public health, sociology, psychology, and related social sciences and/or humanities disciplines, formed an essential part of the desktop internet search. Peer-reviewed online scientific publications were also examined. University websites were also searched for unpublished dissertations and technical research reports that focus on poverty eradication programs.

The entire search yielded studies that were reported during 2006–2013. This 10-year period is crucial for tracking and assessing progress since the social development approach became official policy, through the White Paper for Social Welfare (1997). The search for qualitative studies produced 76 research reports. The reviewer screened the 76 research studies using the inclusion and exclusion criteria, as presented in Table 2.

After a comprehensive search of the literature, the reviewer applied the inclusion and exclusion criteria on the titles, abstracts, keywords, and text of the 76 reports to remove excluded and duplicated reports. While this is a review of literature, the Preferred Re-porting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) (Shamseer et al., 2015) was applied by the reviewer, to explain the process used to arrive at studies selected for thematic synthesis, as outlined in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Systematic review process-map.

Of the 76 studies, 16 studies were sourced through a desktop internet search, while an electronic database search yielded 60 studies. Of the 76 studies that represent data on issues related to poverty eradication, social exclusion, and community-based programs, 59 were excluded: 47 mainly because they are quantitative studies, eight use poverty definitions that are inconsistent with the literature review, another set of eight studies did not report the impact of community-based programs, while six studies neither indicate whether ethics clearance was obtained nor peer-review was conducted. Of the 17 studies that complied with the inclusion criteria, further screening narrowed down the number to 15, because two studies were duplicates. After further full-text eligibility assessment, the reviewer narrowed down the number to nine short-listed studies. After re-applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria on the short-listed studies, the reviewer arrived at nine final qualitative studies to be reviewed.

A blind procedure, where a second reviewer, without knowledge of the nine short-listed studies, repeated the process-map that is outlined above, by applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria to the 76 selected studies. The second reviewer confirmed the suitability of the nine studies selected for inclusion in the systematic review. All the included studies were debated to address any inconsistencies and areas of ambiguity as far as the inclusion and exclusion criteria required, and whether the processing of studies through the process-map was standardized and replicable. All nine studies listed in Table 2 are included mainly because of three factors: they all address “‘poverty/poverty-eradication/poverty-alleviation/poverty-reduction/anti-poverty”, “social exclusion”, “community-based program(s)/project(s)”, present qualitative data, and underwent ethics clearance or were peer-reviewed. Adato, Carter, and May (2006) explore household poverty traps and social exclusion. Mashau (2006) and Nkosi (2010) investigate the poverty situation and the impact of a strategy for poverty alleviation in rural and urban areas, while Van der Merwe (2006) provides a description and analysis of the very personal, subjective experience of poverty by Afrikaans-speaking people.

Stephen (2008), explores factors that might have an impact on the communities’ anti-poverty projects. The study focuses on four projects: two agricultural projects and two non-agricultural projects. Blaauw, Viljoen, and Schenck’s (2011) study sought to determine the prevalence of child-headed households in Gauteng in order to establish a database and to ensure access to aid programs by needy child-headed households. Strydom, Wessels, and Strydom’s (2010) study assesses the effects of health issues and poverty on families in rural areas. Kaeana and Ross (2012) investigated beneficiaries’ perceptions of income-generating projects as alleviators or perpetrators of poverty, and lastly, Sikrweqe (2013) assessed whether a local program contributed towards achieving the goals of poverty reduction.

Table 3 further outlines the sample number and type, the age range of the participants, data collection procedures, and the geographical locations where each study was conducted. All the studies present qualitative data. A study with the smallest sample number reported four participants and a study with the largest sample size reported 700 participants. The age range of the respondents in all nine studies fell within the 18–60 bracket. All the studies (n = 9) interviewed people living and working in underprivileged communities. An overview of geographical areas where the qualitative data were collected shows that the studies were collected in five provinces in South Africa: Gauteng (n = 3), KwaZulu-Natal (n = 2), Limpopo (n = 2), Northern Cape (n = 1), and the Eastern Cape (n = 1).

Guided by relevant theoretical perspectives in poverty, social development, and community-based programs, the reviewer content analyzed the studies by coding of text “line-by-line”; followed by the development of “descriptive themes”; and lastly, the generation of “analytical themes” (Thomas & Harden, 2008; Tong, Palmer, Craig, & Strippoli, 2016). “Thematic analysis” completed the identification and confirmation of emerging themes (Thomas & Harden, 2008), and allowed the reviewer to present the qualitative evidence directly from the studies under review. The procedure that was followed by the reviewer enabled explicit translation of the qualitative data by “…synthesizing them in a transparent way, and facilitating the explicit production of new concepts and hypotheses” (Thomas & Harden, 2008, p. 1).

Results and Discussion

Recommendations

Similar to systematic reviews, literature reviews analyze an ever-growing scope of research on “best practices” for policy-making and policy evaluation (Sundberg & Taylor-Gooby, 2013; Van Rooyen, Steward, & De Wet, 2012). This paper reviews the qualitative evidence to highlight approaches in poverty eradication that can be inferred as impactful and ineffective, subject to more advanced analysis through large-scale reviews that apply qualitative and quantitative methods. This article recommends further systematic reviews that will analyze studies conducted between 2016 and 2023, to provide a more recent and comprehensive picture of the progress and challenges related to social development programs. Reviews place greater emphasis on transparency and accountability (Thomas & Harden, 2008), by providing an overview of impactful and ineffective approaches that no single study can provide. Themes on beneficiaries’ strengths and direct involvement in crucial phases of holistic and multi-multidimensional community-development processes, emerge in the paper as significant to track in forthcoming systematic reviews. Training and research in the three themes outlined above are key areas of focus in assessing progress in the implementation of the social development approach. As noted in a related paper, training “emerges as an important option in expanding the prospects of the intended beneficiaries of community-based programs” (Sitshange, 2022).

Conclusions

Reviews are critical in evaluating the impact of poverty eradication programs. According to the authors, poverty alleviation programs have been ineffective and unsustainable (Dipela & Mohapi, 2021; Raniga, 2018), hence high rates of poverty are consistently reported by statisticians. Reviewers of research studies have a responsibility to beyond painting the impact of poverty through numbers, to highlighting the impact of programs using the voices of community members. The thematic synthesis of qualitative research studies in poverty eradication notes a gap between theory and practice. While laws, policies, and institutions are in place to eradicate poverty, reviews need to empower relevant laws, policies, and institutions to prove impact and sustainability using evidence-based frames of reference. While the review that is presented in the paper is qualitative and limited, it lays a basis for more advanced studies on the impact of poverty eradication programs on individuals and groups.