Executive Summary

South Africa’s enduring income inequality—the world’s highest with a Gini coefficient above 0.63—continues to lock more than half its citizens into poverty and multidimensional deprivation. Recent estimates indicate that 30 million people survive on less than the 2018 upper‑bound poverty line of R1 417 per month, and pandemic‑driven economic shocks pushed a further 9 % of households into extreme poverty in 2020. Poverty’s toll is not only material: food insecurity still afflicts one in four households, while 27 % of children under five were stunted in 2016. Increased exposure to chronic stress, depression and anxiety among low‑income adults confirms the bidirectional link between poverty and mental illness, perpetuating a vicious cycle.

This proposal refines the original study by integrating multidimensional poverty metrics, the Capability Approach and Ecological Systems Theory to map psychological harms more comprehensively and co‑create policy directions with postgraduate social‑science scholars. Mixed‑methods—systematic scoping review, secondary analysis of national datasets (e.g., NIDS‑CRAM, GHS) and focus‑group deliberation—will generate evidence‑based, context‑sensitive recommendations such as nutrition‑linked cash transfers, integrated primary‑care mental‑health services, and moves toward a universal basic income, now prominently debated in the policy arena.

Updated Context and Rationale

Inequality snapshot —South Africa retains the highest global Gini coefficient, and wealth concentration has deepened since 1994 despite modest poverty reduction until 2012.

Multidimensional poverty —UNDP’s 2021 Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) shows 6.3 % of citizens are multidimensionally poor and 12.2 % vulnerable, with deprivations clustering around nutrition, sanitation, schooling and housing quality.

Pandemic shock —COVID‑19 eroded livelihoods, amplifying food insecurity and mental distress; NIDS‑CRAM data reveal household hunger stabilising at higher levels than pre‑2020.

Mental‑health burden —Lower socioeconomic position predicts elevated depression risk; poverty both causes and is caused by mental illness, underscoring an urgent need for integrated interventions.

Theoretical Frameworks

Maslow’s Hierarchy remains a useful heuristic for mapping basic to self‑actualisation needs, but it can mask structural constraints.

Capability Approach (Sen) redirects focus from income to the substantive freedoms people value—health, agency, dignity—aligning well with multidimensional indices.

Ecological Systems Theory (Bronfenbrenner) exposes nested environmental influences (family, community, policy) on psychological outcomes, guiding multilevel policy design.

Enhanced Objectives and Questions

Objective 1 – Evidence synthesis: conduct a scoping review (2010‑2025) on psychological sequelae of poverty among South Africans, coding for mental‑health outcomes, developmental stage and intersecting identities (gender, education, employment).

Objective 2 – Secondary data analysis: mine NIDS‑CRAM, GHS and Stats SA datasets to quantify associations between deprivation clusters and mental‑health proxies (self‑reported depression, suicidal ideation, life satisfaction).

Objective 3 – Deliberative focus groups: engage postgraduate social‑science students (economics, psychology, public health) in structured dialogues to translate evidence into policy levers.

Key research questions (revised):
 1. Which psychosocial detriments (e.g., trauma, hopelessness, stigma) most strongly mediate the poverty–mental‑health nexus?
 2. How do multidimensional deprivations intersect to heighten vulnerability across the life‑course?
 3. What institutional barriers (cost, distance, discrimination) restrict access to mitigating services?
 4. Which policy instruments (cash transfers, school feeding, mobile mental‑health, UBI) are perceived as most impactful and feasible?

Proposed Methodology

Phase A – Scoping review: PRISMA‑ScR‑compliant search of Scopus, PubMed, Africa‑Wide Information; thematic synthesis to map psychological outcomes.

Phase B – Quantitative secondary analysis: multilevel logistic regression on NIDS‑CRAM wave 5 and GHS 2016‑2022 to model probability of depression given deprivation cluster.

Phase C – Qualitative deliberation: two 120‑minute online focus groups (n ≈ 20) using deliberative polling to rank policy options; reflexive thematic analysis.

Integration: meta‑inferences via joint‑display matrices linking quantitative risk gradients to qualitative policy priorities.

Policy Directions for Discussion

1. Nutrition‑conditional cash transfers tied to household food‑purchase monitoring to reduce child stunting.
2. Integrated primary‑care mental‑health by training community health workers in brief interventions (e.g., Problem‑Solving Therapy).
3. School‑based psychosocial support and feeding schemes to break intergenerational cycles.
4. Expansion of social grants toward a Universal Basic Income, currently under national debate, to guarantee minimum capability thresholds.
5. Skills‑and‑enterprise hubs in townships combining micro‑credit, mentoring and digital‑literacy programmes.

Significance and Expected Contribution

By pairing rigorous evidence synthesis with stakeholder deliberation, the study will (a) clarify the psychological pathways through which poverty harms well‑being, (b) quantify deprivation–mental‑health linkages across national datasets, and (c) co‑produce actionable, context‑attuned policy options. The multidimensional‑capabilities lens moves beyond income metrics, aligning with South Africa’s constitutional commitment to dignity and equality.

References

Key works cited in text (alphabetical):
Aguero et al. (2006); Bailey et al. (2020); Bamford et al. (2018); Behrman & Hoddinott (2005); Bronfenbrenner (Ecological Systems); Fransman & Yu (2019); Harmse (2014); Maslow & Lewis (1987); NIDS‑CRAM Consortium (2022); Ravallion (1998); Sen (1984); van der Berg et al. (2020); World Bank Group (2018, 2024); UNDP (2021); World Population Review (2025). Additional citation identifiers correspond to web sources above.