South African social policy after Covid-19: New policy imperatives?

Noyoo, Ndangwa

doi:10.1177/14680181231180519

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 6 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, as Tesfai and de Gruchy (2021) note, South Africa’s mitigation response was characterised by ‘a lack of migration-aware and mobility-competent policies’. The nationalistic response to COVID-19 meant that only South Africans automatically qualified for the ZAR50 billion (USD26 billion) in government pandemic relief and the range of economic and social protection measures introduced by government (Bhorat et al, 2021; Moses & Woolard, 2023; Noyoo, 2023). Their lack of access to government relief programs meant that many migrants and refugees experienced additional economic hardship during lockdown (Angu et al, 2022; Mushomi et al, 2022; Mutambara et al, 2022; Nhengu, 2022; Odunitan-Wayas et al, 2021; Ola, 2021).…”

Section: Pandemic Livelihood Disruptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital Disruptions in the South Africa–Zimbabwe Remittance Corridor During COVID-19

Crush,

Tawodzera

2023

Migration and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on migrant remittances has generated a great deal of confusion and debate. This article aims to test three conflicting global and local narratives about the relationship between the pandemic and remittance flows in the South Africa–Zimbabwe remittance corridor. We refer to these as remittance pessimism, remittance resilience and remittance rerouting narratives. The article presents the pre-pandemic background context of migration from Zimbabwe to South Africa, the evidence for a shift from informal to formal remitting during the pandemic, and the implications of the remittance rerouting narrative for other corridors. We find that many Zimbabwean migrants in South Africa experienced severe economic impacts including unemployment, income loss and lack of access to COVID-19 relief measures. We conclude that there was a significant increase in formal, primarily digital, remittances during the pandemic and a decline in informal remittance conveyance. We highlight the need for more research in other remittance corridors to identify similarities and differences between them in terms of COVID-19 impacts and the shift from informal to formal remittances enabled by digital platforms.

show abstract