South Africans commemorated two significant events in May: Africa and Workers’ Days. The societal reflective moments normally evoke political nostalgia about the importance of African unity and workers’ solidarity in challenging racialised capitalism over recent decades. Yet this year’s reflections were marred by Afrophobic and tribalist attacks on black African migrants.
The leaders and supporters of the movement argue that black African migrants are primarily responsible for the country’s perennial unemployment, crime and low-quality public service problems. The claims justify the violence and discriminatory stereotypes that are loaded with colonial racist assumptions. Furthermore, the organisations have not provided any evidence to substantiate the claims, especially around employment and labour absorption into various economic sectors.
There is consensus that the country’s socio-economic inequality continues to affect black working-class individuals, households and communities disproportionately.
Statistics South Africa’s household and labour force surveys point to racialised and gendered disparities in employment as well as household expenditure figures. But it is erroneous to attribute and reduce the structural socio-economic challenges to increased migration. What is more concerning is the essentialist Afrophobic logic that underpins the claims, which narrows systemic economic problems to individual or group identity. The unsubstantiated sweeping generalisations should be questioned on empirical and political grounds.
First, South Africa has a structural unemployment problem that is not primarily caused by increased labour migration. The research evidence on the persistent labour market inequalities and unemployment points us to different core causes. For example, sectors that have historically employed large sections of the black working class have declined since the late 1980s.
Deindustrialisation, trade liberalisation, deregulating financial markets and decreased state intervention all contributed to the structural weaknesses experienced in high labour absorbing sectors such as manufacturing, textiles and agro-food system value chains. The trend has a direct impact on the employment figures in the country and needs to be reversed. Several civil society organisations, research institutes and the labour movement have posited several policy solutions to increase employment through implementing various industrial and macro-economic policies.
The second flaw in the claims about employment relates to the nature of the labour market. Research indicates that the country has a multilayered labour market structure because workers have differentiated wages, employment security and industrial relations rights. The workforce is divided into two main groups: a small group of workers with standard employment status and rights while most employees occupy precarious jobs with minimal labour protections. The context makes it easier for employers to dismiss workers or exploit them by taking advantage of labour market flexibility.
The job losses that are recorded in several sectors and communities are related to the trends and not migration. Additionally, migrant workers constitute a small portion of overall employed workers. Most surveys conducted by both state and non-state research organisations indicate that migrant workers constitute less than 10% of the overall labour workforce. The discussion needs to be further disaggregated into sector specific trends so that citizens and policymakers can obtain a clear evidence-based picture. Reports from organisations such as the African Centre for Migration & Society and the Migrating for Work Research Consortium found that non-South African migrant employees usually occupy precarious and low-paying jobs. The facts challenge the sweeping generalisations about employment articulated in the recent violent attacks.
The third and final shortcoming in this shift towards heightened anti-migrant labour movement is state centrism. There are minimal efforts aimed at holding private actors and businesses accountable for creating labour market super-exploitation. Most of the frustration about exclusion from labour markets is directed towards black African migrants or state authorities. Yet there are cases where both large and small private businesses continue to hire migrant workers in exploitative labour conditions.
The state-centric emphasis in the movements overlooks this trend and redirects the core causes to marginalised migrant workers and government. Most South Africans agree that breaking labour laws and regulations is wrong. But the policy solutions for addressing this circumvention of labour law must be based on evidence and directed towards the core institutions causing the crisis.
More importantly, the country needs labour market and macroeconomic policy reforms that increase employment figures substantially. The alternative policy proposals are articulated in many labour movement and civil society formal policy submissions. The main propositions include the following interventions: strengthening labour rights implementation, protecting high-labour absorbing sectors, decreasing trade liberalisation, demand-led fiscal policy frameworks and decreasing concentrated market structures across the economy.
Dr Khwezi Mabasa is a part-time sociology lecturer at the University of Pretoria and Economic and Social Policy lead at Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung South Africa.
South Africa has a structural unemployment problem that is not primarily caused by increased labour migration.
