How social grants work differently in South Africa and Zimbabwe

South Africa’s social grant system reaches more than 18 million people, but Zimbabwe has a very different approach to social protection.

Zimbabwe does provide cash transfers and other assistance to vulnerable people.

However, its programmes are generally more targeted at households considered to be extremely poor or vulnerable rather than providing a large nationwide welfare system similar to South Africa’s SASSA.

The South African Social Security Agency (SASSA) says more than 18 million people receive various social grants.

The system includes grants for older people, children, people with disabilities, foster children and people requiring care.

SASSA’s eligibility rules include means testing for several grants, allowing the government to determine whether applicants meet the required financial criteria.

South Africa has therefore built social assistance into a large, nationwide system supported through the national budget.

Zimbabwe’s system is considerably more targeted.

Zimbabwe focuses on the most vulnerable

Zimbabwe’s flagship cash-transfer programmes have historically focused on households facing extreme poverty and limited ability to work.

The Harmonised Social Cash Transfer programme, for example, targeted food-poor and labour-constrained households.

Research published in the International Social Security Review found that the programme reached about 75 677 households in 2022.

Zimbabwe also operates other forms of assistance, including public assistance, education support and medical assistance.

The country’s social protection system is now undergoing further reform.

A World Bank project approved in 2026 is supporting the development of a Zimbabwe Social Registry, intended to improve the identification and targeting of vulnerable households.

Social grants funding remains a major challenge

One reason Zimbabwe has struggled to build a SASSA-sized system is the country’s limited fiscal space.

UNICEF reported that by September 2024, only 18% of Zimbabwe’s social-protection budget had been disbursed, compared with 68% for education and 53% for health.

It cited macroeconomic volatility, procurement delays and slow release of funds as factors affecting implementation.

Zimbabwe has also relied on development partners for some cash-transfer programmes.

UNICEF, for example, has supported emergency cash transfers aimed at vulnerable households during economic and humanitarian crises.

The result is a social protection system that is more narrowly targeted and spread across several programmes rather than concentrated in a single institution comparable with SASSA.

That does not mean Zimbabwe has no social grants.

Instead, the two countries have developed different models.

South Africa has the fiscal capacity and institutional infrastructure to maintain a large-scale, regular grant system, while Zimbabwe has focused its more limited resources on households considered most vulnerable.