The government’s insistence on conditional and targeted grants is increasingly being exposed as inadequate and often counterproductive, leaving many vulnerable Namibians in a state of precarious destitution.
While the government has realised a cash grant would significantly aid the most vulnerable, it’s the distinction between a Conditional Basic Income Grant (CBIG) and a Universal Basic Income Grant (UBIG) where the country’s social safety nets fall short.
A UBIG is an unconditional, regular cash payment delivered to all citizens or residents, regardless of their income, employment status, or any behavioural requirements. The key is its universality and unconditionality.
The Namibian government’s approach, epitomised by the CBIG, is fundamentally different. It is a targeted grant, paid per household, and subject to a means test, which includes a household income threshold of N$1 600 per month.
The concept of a Basic Income Grant (BIG) in Namibia originated from the Namibian Tax Consortium (NAMTAX) 2002 report, which suggested a monthly income of N$100 to be paid to every Namibian aged 0 to 59. This idea was put forth with the aim of significantly reducing absolute poverty and the degree of inequality in the country, as high inequality was seen as suffocating economic growth.
A core objective was to target those most in need without relying on a complex administrative system, while also ensuring the grant would be sustainable and affordable without retarding economic growth.
Furthermore, the BIG was proposed to avoid the negative consequences often associated with alternative strategies for transferring income from the rich to the poor. The financing mechanism involved the tax system, designed so that 85% of Namibians would receive a grant worth more than the additional amount they paid in taxes. Following this, a BIG pilot project was implemented in the adjacent villages of Otjivero and Omitara from 2008 to 2011.
The Basic Income Grant Coalition’s current proposal has substantially increased the suggested amount to N$500 to be paid to every Namibian aged 0 to 59. This still falls far short of the UN’s prescribed US$2.15 per day.
The executive director of the Ministry of Finance, Michael Humavindu, at a recent public presentation on BIG, said the government favours a targeted approach to help those in extreme poverty.
In June, in a written response to questions about the government’s strategy with grants, Humavindu said, “Namibia surely made great strides in terms of the social cash transfer system as it emanated from one that perpetuated inequality based on racial, regional and ethnic discrimination at our Independence. The next phase is to ensure innovation around service delivery, expanding targeted access whilst ensuring viable fiscal prudence.”
Media graduate, Julia Nekwaya grew up in Otjivero.
She remembers the cash grant and its impact, especially how most learners were then able to go to high school in Gobabis or other nearby towns.
She describes the current state of the area as far worse than when there was UBIG.
“With the cost of living that skyrocketed, most residents depend on the old age pension as the only source of income, most shops closed down, and school dropout rates are soaring, and unemployment is driving a lot of young people to poaching on the white-owned farms.”
For many households, the N$1 600 pension presents the only monthly income for an extended family.
The Namibia Statistics Agency said over 130 000 of Namibia’s 756 000 households depend on government pension grants.
However, this conditional nature of the government’s current grant regime creates immediate exclusions and imposes a significant administrative burden. The number of people needing grants continues to grow.
The old age grant stands at over 220 689 beneficiaries and costs the government N$3.6 billion per year. The disability grant (for children over 16 years): N$957 million, benefiting 53 381 permanent and 6 124 temporary recipients. The child disability grant (below 16 years) costs N$632 million, benefiting 10 708 children.
The conditional basic income grant is reaching 32 834 households with an average of 164 170 beneficiaries.
The children’s grant stands at 217 958 recipients and 331 709 beneficiaries, and since most of the children are under age and do not hold a national identity document, the parents or guardians receive the grant on their behalf. These figures exclude grants paid to military veterans.
Praised by UNICEF for social sector spending, the government allocated 50.7% of the 2024/25 budget to social sectors, including 23% for education, 14% for health, and 12% for social protection.
However, the State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI), published by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and other UN agencies in July 2025, states that over 1.6 million Namibians cannot afford a healthy diet, with only 46.7% of the population meeting minimum nutritional needs.
The report blames high food prices and low incomes as primary factors contributing to this problem.
Perhaps the most alarming consequence of the targeted approach is the exclusion of many vulnerable Namibian children. According to Unicef Namibia’s 2024 report, the situation is dire.
A staggering 63% of children are living in multidimensional poverty, while youth unemployment reach as high as 50% in some regions, leaving many adolescents without access to education, training, or jobs.
It means poor people can suffer multiple disadvantages at the same time, including poor health or malnutrition, a lack of clean water or electricity, poor quality of work, or little schooling. Focusing on one factor alone, such as income, is not enough to capture the true reality of poverty.
Long-time researcher and basic income grant agitator, Dirk Haarmann, in a recent interview with The Issue, argues that the exclusion is illogical from a developmental point of view, stating, “universality matters. It matters for the children, first of all, because now they are excluded where they should have been the primary focus.”
In his State of the Nation address in April 2021, President Hage Geingob talked about Namibia’s persistent social challenges, which were exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic.
While calling the situation in informal settlements a “humanitarian crisis,” Geingob reiterated his administration’s commitment to alleviating poverty but strongly rejected the idea of a UBIG, calling it “entirely misplaced.”
Instead, he announced that the existing social programmes like the food bank, marginalised grant, and feeding scheme would be consolidated into a “modified” BIG with “clear eligibility criteria” for beneficiaries.
Geingob acknowledged that the pandemic had threatened to reverse progress made over the previous five years, highlighting the reality of countless Namibians who had lost incomes and were struggling to afford meals.
Geingob stressed that providing adequate shelter, urban land, and sanitation is critical for a dignified life, noting that approximately 230 000 households then lived in shacks and that rural-urban migration is increasing this number daily. He committed to intensifying efforts through private sector partnerships under the Harambee Prosperity Plan II, with a goal of delivering 20 000 housing opportunities and 24 000 serviced erven across the country.
While significant, the CBIG is paid per household, and the amount of N$600 per month must be stretched to cover all members, regardless of the number of people in the household.
The grim reality of this deprivation was underscored by activist Uhuru Dempers during a presentation on the difference between UBIG and CBIG in September, who noted, “We can no more expect 50% of the citizens being unable to meet their basic fundamental rights to survive and live a dignified life.”
Haarmann, who was instrumental in the BIG pilot project at Omitara, elaborated on the dire effect of this on large, poor households: “If you have a grant of N$600 per month per family and that’s per household, and you have 10 people in a household, then it just boils down to two Namibian dollars per person per day. You can’t expect to see economic results on this. It’s nowhere close to even a food poverty line.”
Burdening the Poor
The conditional nature of the grant system, which relies on means-testing, inadvertently creates a poverty trap, actively punishing those who attempt to pull themselves out of destitution.
Haarmann explained the mechanism: “The moment you are starting a small business, the moment you’re becoming productive, you’re bound to go over the N$1 600 [household income threshold] means you’re losing your N$1 600 [grant].”
This forces the poor into an impossible choice: risk losing their only stable income for a volatile entrepreneurial endeavour, or conceal their earnings to remain on the grant. “You have to decide, do I really want to start a risky business… or do I not do it? Or not declared in order to stay on the grant? And then you’re pushing people into illegal businesses because they can’t declare what they are really earning,” Haarmann said.
The government, by imposing complex requirements and means-testing, also incurs substantial administrative costs. The Ministry of Finance in 2024 paid N$116 million to companies to distribute grants, and while the government has now roped in Nampost to distribute all grants, this immense expenditure is partly a consequence of the complicated administrative process, which involves attestation, verification, and approval across multiple levels and databases.
Calculating who qualifies adds to the administrative burden.
“What we do in terms of the calculation is that we rather look at who would not need it. In any case, even people living above the international poverty line of US$3 per day would still need the BIG in order to meet nutrition, health, education, housing needs, and to partake in the economy.
Universal Solution
Proponents of the UBIG argue it’s not just a social handout but a potent tool for economic transformation. The evidence comes from the highly publicised pilot project in Otjivero, where an unconditional grant was distributed.
Haarmann cited specific results from Otjivero: income from self-employment grew by 300%, and wages grew by 19%.
Furthermore, he noted a drastic reduction in child malnutrition: “Malnutrition decreased… down from 42% after six months to 17% after 12 months, down to 10%.”
He characterised the UBIG as a “trampoline” rather than the hammock it’s often depicted as by its detractors: “It really pushes the money into the communities where it’s needed… The money circulated and thereby became more. And that’s local economic growth, and that’s the opposite of extractivism.”
Nekwaya agrees: “There was so much buying power [during the Otjivero pilot project] that it resulted in a number of corner shops in the community. Moreover, most people were able to go to big towns and Windhoek to look for jobs.”
The unconditional money provided the necessary security and liquidity for people to take risks, start small businesses, and ultimately become self-employed.
Nekwaya said, “looking for a job as a graduate would be easy if I had a cushion like BIG, because as it is, I can’t afford to attend some interviews as a result of a lack of money.”
The primary argument against a full UBIG, as articulated by the Ministry of Finance, is one of affordability. Humavindu argued that a UBIG meeting the UN’s poverty line of US$2.15 per person per day (approximately N$1 143 per month) would require an increase in taxes and is fiscally untenable under the current regime.
However, Haarmann suggested a clear path for financing, which he linked to broader tax reform. He proposed a more progressive tax structure and noted that a UBIG system could itself broaden the tax base.
“The beauty of a basic income grant is, there’s no cutoff… the more you grow your business, the more you become a net contributor in the system,” he explained. By drawing a small-scale business into formal economic activity, the UBIG moves them from being net recipients to net contributors, fostering a system of solidarity and shared prosperity.
The current system, by clinging to conditionality, risks not only perpetuating social inequality but also forfeiting a proven, powerful tool for stimulating local economic growth.
Nekwaya said, “Bringing something like a BIG would save Otjivero. Because my people live in dire poverty, where they ask themselves which meal of the day is most important.” As Dempers passionately stated, ” The cost of inaction, in social breakdown, crime, and missed economic potential, may ultimately prove far greater than the cost of a UBIG.
