Beneficiaries’ aspirations to permanent employment within the South African Working for Water Programme

Abstract

The South African Working for Water (WfW) programme is a short-term public works programme (PWP) focused on clearing invasive alien plants, while training and empowering the marginalised poor to find employment. Furthermore, it aims to develop independent, entrepreneurial contractors who should 'exit' from the programme into the broader labour market. However, evidence indicates that many beneficiaries have become financially dependent on this employment, and find it difficult to search for alternatives. Understanding the reasons for this dependence from the perspective of the beneficiaries of this PWP is crucial to align such projects to the actual needs of the beneficiaries, but these have not yet been considered from a sociological perspective. This article reports on data collected, through face-to-face interviews, on WfW beneficiaries' aspirations to permanent employment in four projects in the Winelands and Overberg districts of the Western Cape. It presents the novel finding that the social structures within projects themselves seem to create a need to remain in the WfW programme. In addition, a misalignment between these projects' implementation and beneficiaries' aspirations to financial stability (associated with permanent employment in WfW) is highlighted. The authors argue that WfW should respond to these aspirations, rather than pursue the ostensibly unrealistic aim of creating independent entrepreneurs. Finally, the implications of these findings for PWPs globally, and their concerns regarding the inadvertent creation of beneficiary dependence, are outlined.

Direct and indirect socio‐economic benefits from ecological infrastructure interventions in the Western Cape, South Africa

“…Since most of the ecological infrastructure programs only offer minimum wages on short‐term contracts, many workers tend to leave whenever better job openings turn up. Our findings show in line with previous studies (Buch & Dixon 2009; Hough & Prozesky 2012; McConnachie et al 2013; Sykes & Jooste 2014) that workers do not perceive the program income as a reliable income source for the future. This is causing a high degree of instability and loss of capacity within the programs' respective workforces.…”

“…While WfW seems to have achieved results in terms of the environmental objectives (Woodworth 2006; van Wilgen & Wannenburgh 2016), the social development outcomes appear to be lagging behind, especially when it comes to securing long‐term benefits for the workers involved (Magadlela & Mdzeke 2004). Despite the scientific focus on WfW and the program's impacts on workers (Hough & Prozesky 2012), contractors (Buch & Dixon 2009; Coetzer & Louw 2012; McConnachie et al 2013), local communities (de Neergaard et al 2005), and landowners (Urgenson et al 2013), WfW is nevertheless only one out of several ecological infrastructure programs in South Africa. Less scientific attention has been given to other programs, such as LandCare and Cape Nature.…”

Exploring integrative research in the context of invasive alien plant management

“…5,26,42 However, despite social considerations being increasingly integrated into the planning and framing of strategies, socially focused research does not appear to be prioritised. 10,27,46,47,[49][50][51][52] Our findings further suggest that WfW has not been comprehensive in addressing their socially focused research priorities ( Table 2). The under-representation of the social sciences and operationally focused research is of concern (see Table 2).…”