Traditional indicators of human development

In an effort to improve the management of their economies, SADC member States have made notable strides as well as varying degrees of progress in human development. The SADC Regional HDR of 1998 reported that life expectancy, adult literacy and gross en-rolment ratios for primary and secondary schools had shown significant improvements since the 1960s. By the 1970s, 9 of the 15 member States had attained independence.

Repressive and discriminatory regimes were characteristic of colonial and subsequent un-democratic governance in the period just after independence in most countries.

The rate and level of growth in human development, as measured by the HDI, encom-pass adult literacy, real per capita income, gross enrolment ratios and life expectancy at birth, among other indicators. The HDI profile for SADC over the past three decades is presented in Table 2.1. SADC member States fall into two broad categories in terms of the HDI: the medium human-development category, which groups Mauritius, Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland, and the low human development category which contains all the other countries.

Table 2.1: HDI for SADC countries, 1980-2011

  Human Development Index

Botswana 0.556 0.653 0.57 0.589 128 0.633 98 0.633 118

DRC - - 0.431 0.365 168 0.239 168 0.286 187

Lesotho 0.518 0.574 0.535 0.493 145 0.427 141 0.45 160

Madagascar - - - 0.469 150 0.435 135 0.48 151

Malawi 0.342 0.36 0.4 0.388 165 0.385 153 0.4 171

Mauritius 0.656 0.72 0.772 0.781 64 0.701 72 0.728 77

Mozambique 0.302 0.31 0.32 0.354 171 0.284 165 0.322 184

Namibia - - 0.61 0.607 126 0.606 105 0.632 120

South Africa 0.66 0.71 0.695 0.666 119 0.597 110 0.619 123

Swaziland 0.54 0.615 0.57 0.519 137 0.498 121 0.522 140

Tanzania - 0.422 0.44 0.407 162 0.398 148 0.466 152

Zambia 0.46 0.468 0.433 0.389 164 0.395 150 0.436 164

Zimbabwe 0.572 0.597 0.551 0.491 147 0.14 169 0.376 173

No data available for Seychelles

Source: UNDP, Human Development Reports (2003, 2004, and 2011)

In figure 2.1 below, a cursory comparison⁷ of HDI progress between 2002 and 2011 across SADC illustrates that the early part of our reference period (2002) registered higher HDIs compared to the latter part (2011) for most countries. The larger part of the subre-gion falls below the average HDI for SADC. Interestingly, the SADC average HDI also provides a divide between the countries in the medium-development category and those in the low-development category.

The subregion was not immune to the global economic crises, hence the observed de-clines in HDI for the various countries. In addition, the dede-clines can also be attributed to decreases in the value of key variables in the HDI. For example, data from the World Bank covering the period 2002-2012 suggests that, whereas in every other subregion life expectancy improved over time, it declined for Sub-Saharan Africa and for the vast major-ity of SADC countries mainly due to the high incidence of HIV/AIDS and other health stresses. DRC, Mozambique and Zimbabwe experienced marked deterioration, with the Zimbabwean case being by far the most dramatic deterioration of its human develop-ment record as recorded by HDI. These declines could be attributed to social, political and economic collapse in Zimbabwe, internal conflict in DRC, and social and economic unrest in Mozambique, in addition to the global economic crises. However, a few coun-tries maintained or marginally improved their HDI positions. It is however worth noting that while the computation of the HDI has evolved over time the relative ranking of the countries remains the same.

7 This is described as a cursory comparison because the methodology for computing the HDI had been changing over the years since the index was first published. This means the index is not prop-erly comparable from year to year, and only a crude comparison can be done.

Figure 2.1: Comparison of HDI outcomes in SADC, 2002 vs. 2011

Source: constructed from Table 2.1

2.2 Poverty and income inequality

Human poverty varies among member States in the SADC subregion and has been subject to fluctuations in the last decade. The greatest areas of deprivation are lack of nutrition and access to safe drinking water. Also, the frequent occurrence of droughts usually manifests itself in food crises and results in starvation, thereby discouraging economic activity.

It is estimated that over a third of the SADC population are afflicted by abject poverty.

In 2005, 7 out of the 15 countries were among the 38 least developed countries in the world. By 2011 the number had only fallen to 6 out of 15 among the 48 least developed countries. From Table 2.2, it is clear that national poverty levels in the subregion have only marginally declined, if at all. Indeed, the overall poverty headcounts have increased in countries such as Lesotho, Swaziland and, to a much larger extent, Zimbabwe. Among the countries for which data were available, only four countries, Botswana, Namibia, Tanzania

and South Africa had achieved lower poverty headcount levels of less than 40 per cent of the overall populations.

For the few countries where poverty statistics are disaggregated into urban poverty and rural poverty, indications are that poverty is generally a rural phenomenon. Among the countries for which data was available, only Mozambique and Madagascar show signifi-cant drops in rural poverty (a drop in excess of 20 percentage points) over the period 1991-2010. During this period, the same countries (Mozambique and Madagascar) are the only ones that show small discrepancies between poverty levels in the rural and urban areas. All other countries show a reasonable wedge between rural poverty and urban pov-erty, with Swaziland having the highest gap between the two (the level of rural poverty is more than twice that of urban poverty in the same period).

Table 2.2: Urban, rural and overall national poverty head count (% below national poverty datum line)

  1991-2000   2001-2010

  Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban Overall

Botswana     47.0

  1991-2000   2001-2010

  Rural Urban Overall Rural Urban Overall

South Africa    

No data available for Angola and Seychelles Source: www.sadc.int

A similar pattern to that obtaining in Table 2.2 is observed when poverty is considered using an international US dollar measure (Table 2.3).

Table 2.3: International poverty line: population below $1.25 a day (%)

1991-2000 2001-2010

Angola     54.3 (2000)  54.3 (2009)  

Botswana     31.2 (2000)  23.4 (2003) 6.5 (2010)

DRC         59.2 (2006)  

Lesotho 56.4 (1993) 47.5 (1995)     43.4 (2003)  

Madagascar 72.5 (1993) 72.0 (1997) 82.3 (1999) 76.3 (2001) 67.8 (2005)

Malawi   83.1 (1998)   73.9 (2004)  

Mauritius <1% (1996) <1% (1997) <1% (2007) <1% (2008)

Mozambique   81.3 (1997)    74.7 (2003)  59.6 (2008)

Namibia 49.1 (1993)          

Seychelles 2.0 (2000) 2.0 (2007)

South Africa 24.3 (1993) 21.4 (1995) 26.2 (2000)     

Swaziland 78.7 (1995)      62.9 (2001)  

Tanzania 72.6 (1992)     88.5 (2000) 67.9 (2007)  

Zambia 62.8 (1991) 65.3 (1993) 62.1 (1996) 55.4 (1998) 64.8 (2003) 64.3 (2004) Survey year in parenthesis.

No data available for Zimbabwe Source: www.sadc.int

In order to address the high prevalence of abject poverty, a link between growth and human development has to be created consciously through deliberate public policies, such as public spending on social services and fiscal policy to redistribute income and assets. This is particularly important considering that; on the one hand, during 2005-2011 all countries of the SADC subregion, except Zimbabwe recorded positive annual average real growth in GDP, with a good number of countries growing above the SADC average (Figure 2.2). On the other hand, inequal-ity, as measured by income inequality through the Gini-coefficient, is relatively high in most SADC member States (Table 2.4). For those countries with data for more than one year, two distinct patterns are seen. Lesotho, Madagascar and Swaziland show marginal declines in income inequality while Mozambique, South Africa and Zambia show marginal increases in income inequalities. It would be more informative to analyse income inequality as measured by the Gini-coefficient in conjunction with poverty statistics and real GDP growth statistics.

Figure: 2.2: Average (2005-2011) real GDP growth rates (annual average % change)

Source: Constructed from Country Data Tables (Annex 1) Table 2.4: Income inequality (Gini-coefficient)

1991-2000 2001-2010

Angola 0.59 (2000)    

Botswana 0.61 (1993)

Lesotho 0.58 (1993) 0.63 (1994) 0.53 (2003)

Madagascar 0.42 (1999) 0.47 (2001) 0.47 (2005) 0.44 (2010)

Malawi 0.39 (2004)

Mozambique 0.44 (1996) 0.47 (2003) 0.46 (2008)

Namibia 0.74 (1993)

Seychelles 0.19 (2007)

South Africa 0.56 (1995) 0.57 (2000) 0.67 (2006) 0.63 (2009)

Swaziland 0.61 (1995) 0.51 (2001) 0.51 (2010)

Tanzania 0.38 (2007)

Zambia 0.51 (2004) 0.60 (2006)

Zimbabwe 0.50 (1995)

Survey year in parenthesis; No data available for DRC and Mauritius

Source: Constructed from World Bank World Development Indicators (WDI) data8

8 Most recent data available in the World Development Indicators database (WDI) were for 2010.

Among the SADC countries, we see positive real growth rates coexisting with high income inequalities and high poverty levels (especially rural poverty). At first glance, this seems to sug-gest that jobless growth patterns are prevalent in the subregion. In other words, the sectors that drive growth in the subregion are not the sectors that employ the bulk of the poor population.

Uncovering growth profiles in a couple of countries reveals that this is indeed the case. Angola, the fastest-growing economy in the subregion, is largely driven by the growth and boom of its oil industry and, since this sector does not employ the majority of the poor, no meaningful impacts are being made on poverty. Countries which have experienced positive growth but also experienced moderate increases in poverty and income inequality in like manner are Zambia, South Africa and DRC.

Tanzania achieved the lowest levels of income inequality and poverty in the subregion though it was Mozambique that made the most significant strides in poverty reduction (although pov-erty levels are still high). Other countries that have marginally reduced povpov-erty and inequality coupled with positive growth rates in a similar manner to Tanzania are Botswana, Malawi, Swaziland, Madagascar and Lesotho. For Mozambique, however, inequality marginally in-creased, even though it was the robust growth in Mozambique’s agriculture sector that has been responsible for the significant decline in poverty after the civil war (Pauw and others, 2011).

Outliers on one end are the two island nations Mauritius and Seychelles, which stand out for their low poverty and income inequality, and on the other end Zimbabwe, which experienced increases in both poverty and inequality.

As indicated above, the marketplace often does not include the links between growth and pov-erty reduction (so-called “pro-poor growth” or “inclusive growth” outcomes) and can further marginalise the poor (Ul Haq, 1995).

Most SADC countries are said to lack the attributes of solidarity and equitable distribution of benefits for them to achieve the people-centred development they strive for. For instance, the strategy for South Africa – the most economically dominant country in the subregion – is one of market (capital)-oriented regionalism. This form of regionalism is tailored towards private-sector-driven development, which neglects the inherent protection of local economies and industries from competition on the global market. The implication this has for human livelihood is that individual countries are made vulnerable. The distribution of benefits from the presence of multinational corporations (MNCs) has shown trends of inequality because, although people are given a wider range of goods and services to select from, the profits gener-ated by foreign MNCs are then repatrigener-ated, sucking the host country dry and discouraging local enterprise growth. In other words, the interests of the private sector are dominant over the social issues, where there ought to be real and substantive (and not residual) benefits.