| Overview: the development
challenges and opportunities facing the Free State The Free State faces socio-economic challenges and opportunities common to much of South Africa, and largely attributable to the unequal development and resource distribution of the past. General features include: 1. a Significant housing backlog 2. Iinadequate physical and social infrastructure 3. a Skewed pattern of resource allocation4 . Uncoordinated development efforts 5. High levels of illiteracy and a poor skills base 6. Under-representation of disadvantaged communities in technical and managerial occupations 7. income and infrastructure disparities between rural and urban communities 8. inefficient government bureaucracies 9. inadequate environment control measures |
- Population
The Free State’s estimated total population is 2.47 million (1996 Census Preliminary Population Estimates), which makes it the second smallest provincial population after the Northern Cape.
The estimated growth rate of 1.7% per annum and the population density are the second lowest among the provinces. The ethnic division of the total population is estimated as follows:
 Figure 1: Ethnic Composition of the Free State (Source: Central Statistics, Pretoria 1995) |
One of the most outstanding, features of the population of the Free State is the very low population density and the major disparity between the urban and non-urban white population. There has been a marked decline in excess of 2. 5% in the total rural population over the last 15 years.
| 1718000 people |
|
752000 people |
| Figure 2 : Estimated Rural and Urban Population | ||
 |
Figure 3: Estimated Population Ethnic Distribution (Source: Central Statistics 1995)
- Poverty
The poverty profile of the Free State shows an estimated 66% living in poverty, the third highest poverty rates in the country (World Bank Report on Key Indicators of Poverty in South Africa, October 1995). However, as bad as this is, these figures mask even worse conditions, particularly in the former homeland of Qwa Qwa where the figures are at 88%. Rural poverty in particular is difficult to quantify, but estimates indicate that 75% of the poor live in rural areas.
The decline in the provincial growth rate over the last two decades has resulted in a decrease in per capita income, increasing poverty and pressure on the welfare system to meet basic human needs. Extreme inequity also exists in the distribution of income, with people on rural areas poorer than their urban counterparts. Other than people living on farms, these people rely mainly on remittances and state social grants for income. With increasing unemployment – families, especially female headed households, people in rural areas, the disabled, youth and other who have special needs, have become increasingly vulnerable and, because they have no security and sustainable livelihoods, they turn to the welfare system for income, maintenance and social support.
The ‘Poverty Gap’ measures how much money is needed to bring each person’s income up to the poverty line. For a household with two adults and three children, this level is estimated at R840 per month in urban areas and R740 in rural areas.
|
|||
Southern Free State |
Goldfields | Eastern Free State | Nothern Free State |
Figure 4 : Poverty Gap per Area (Source: Human Sciences Research Council 1995)
Poverty can be measured objectively by income indicators. However, it is also a subjective reality linked to hunger, malnutrition, the ability to afford health care and access to basic services. Absent or inadequate services substantially increase the incidence of poverty, especially for the rural population, women, the elderly and children. The greatest burden of poverty falls on women – female-headed households experience a 50 % higher poverty rate than male-headed households – and children are the victims, with 45 % of the poor consisting of the children below 16 years. A third of the poor lives in shacks or traditional dwellings and most have no electricity, running water and modern toilets.
Poverty is often accompanied by additional social problems such as family disintegration, adults and children in conflict with the law, and substance abuse. It is this combination of social, economic and emotional deprivation, which heightens the vulnerability of poor individuals and families.
- Income
Figures for 1991 indicate that although whites represent only 15 % of the Free State population, they earned nearly 55% of the remuneration in the province compared with the corresponding figure for blacks of about 63% and nearly 44% respectively.
 |
Figure 5: Annual per capita Income per Ethnic Group
The personal income per capita in the province in 1994 was R7 621 but this figure was distorted by the gross inequalities in income patterns, especially the wage gap as has traditionally existed. This figure does not build into different income patterns between black and white, between male and female, and between urban and rural dwellers.
Salaries and wages represent about 50 percent of total household income, while 19 percent of household income is derived from agricultural activities and 10 percent from self-employment.
- Human Development Index
The Human Development Index (HDI) measures the relative socio-economic development of an area. It measures the ability of individuals to live a long and healthy life, to communicate and participate in the life of the community, and to have a decent living. It examines basic indicators of life expectancy, adult literacy, the average years of schooling and per capita income in a region.
The Free State ranks in the medium HDI scale with a level of 0.65, below the South African HDI of 0.67. Areas with a HDI below 0.5 are considered to have a low level, and those of 0.8 and above as a high level of human development.
