An economist has raised a red flag on the proposal to introduce a Maternal Support Grant (MSG) for pregnant women from poor families so that they can afford to eat healthy food and give birth to healthy babies.
University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN) economist Dr Simiso Msomi believes the MSG would have unintended consequences, encouraging women, including teenagers from poor families, to fall pregnant just to earn this monthly grant.
The debate has been sparked by the MSG Advocacy Coalition, which represents 15 NGOs and research bodies.
The coalition believes that the MSG should have an annual budget of approximately R2 billion to support around 800,000 women who get pregnant every year.
The coalition believes the money would help pregnant women eat nutritious food and give birth to healthy babies without physical and mental deficiencies, such as stunting, which is usually caused by hunger before birth.
However, Msomi said this would have a devastating effect as women would deliberately get unplanned pregnancies to take advantage of the grant.
“This might be an incentive for poor women to get pregnant so that they can have money to spend.
“Where does it stop, and how many poor women will now see this as a method to get some money?” asked Msomi.
He said young, poor women might, through focusing on school, get opportunities to advance themselves, but the MSG might be more detrimental to them than saving them from poverty during pregnancy.
“Let us say they allocate this money, it means you will get money when you are poor and pregnant, then (after birth) your child gets the child support grant.
“This would create an even bigger trap as women would not have an opportunity to go to school and develop themselves since they have to take care of the children, meaning they are going to remain locked in poverty.”
He said the MSG might not be sustainable in the long run.
“We don’t want to create a welfare state that is indefinite; this policy will not uplift people but will lock them in a trap of poverty indefinitely, creating more poverty.
“In the long run, this R2 billion will go up to R4 billion as we will be having more and more women getting pregnant because there is an incentive to be.”
He said another negative consequence of the MSG is that the government would have to increase taxes to fund it because other government programmes are important to have their budgets reduced.
“Meaning to get this money, income tax and fuel levy must increase, but in essence, this (MSG) does not serve the public, and it is not in society’s best interest. In fact, it is going to be more disastrous than serving poor women,” said Msomi.
He said instead of incentivising pregnancy, women must be taught skills for planning their lives and making responsible decisions.
“We should be giving women education so that they can make choices and determine an appropriate time to be pregnant when they are economically able to afford it,” said Msomi.
Liezel Engelbrecht, Nutrition Strategy Lead for the Hold My Hand accelerator, which is part of the coalition, said that by spending R2 billion — roughly 0.1% of government spending — on MSG to feed unborn babies, the country would save R13.8 billion spent by the public health system providing medical care to children born with deficiencies.
“It’s estimated that for every R1 invested in the MSG, society gains approximately R30 in benefits, primarily through preventing premature deaths and reducing healthcare costs. We believe that the MSG is a cost-effective, time-bound, and operationally feasible intervention,” said Engelbrecht.
She said a study conducted by Cornerstone Economic Research in 2025 showed that roughly 800,000 women a year in South Africa would benefit from the MSG.
She said the coalition wants the MSG to be equal to the Child Support Grant, whose monthly payment should increase to the value of the food poverty line.
“Evidence from South Africa and globally shows that even modest income support during pregnancy reduces the risk of low birth weight and strengthens early childhood development,” Engelbrecht said.
The Coalition’s prediction, which is based on similar practices in Peru, Mexico, Canada, and Uruguay, would improve maternal well-being, reduce hunger, and promote healthier infant care.
“In Peru, a maternity benefit was found to reduce the number of women who were underweight or overweight, in addition to reducing maternal anaemia, while beneficiaries of a maternity benefit in Mexico were associated with a 32% reduction in low-birthweight, similar to what researchers have found in Canada and Uruguay, with the introduction of maternal income supplements,” said Engelbrecht.
She said that although public health facilities are supposed to provide underweight pregnant women with supplements, there is uneven implementation of the programme across facilities.
Chief Economist and CEO at Antswisa Capital Partners, Miyelani Mkhabela, said South Africa’s economy was big enough to have a comprehensive response to the Maternal Support Grant.
“The government doesn’t have to cut departmental budgets, but our economy has an advanced advantage to grow while managing the expenses.
“South Africa is a wealthy country and can afford to provide for its citizens all the time. R2 billion annually is reasonable for a state budget and revenue of our size,” he said.
Another economist Iraj Abedian said the government cut down salaries spent on its “over paid” oversized staff.
“By right sizing the public sector, it is common knowledge that 10s of billions could be saved, and then such savings could be redirected towards such needs as MSG, and others,” Abedian said.
IOL originally published this article on 25 June 2026. Read it here.
