The Namibian society has long debated the merits of a basic income grant (BIG) as a tool for poverty alleviation. 

The idea of providing unconditional cash transfers to all citizens has gained traction over the years, with pilot projects demonstrating some success. 

However, Namibia’s current socio-economic crisis, marked by rampant unemployment, healthcare crisis, stagnant agricultural sector, poor education system, bloated and inefficient civil service, and severe housing shortage raises critical questions about whether BIG is a sustainable solution or merely a temporary fix for deeper systemic failures. 

In 2008, Namibia conducted a landmark BIG pilot project in Omitara-Ot j ivero, where each person under 60 received N$100 monthly. The results were astonishing: poverty levels dropped significantly as households could finally afford necessities. 

Moreover, the initiative stimulated local economic activity, and crime rates declined. 

The BIG also improved education and healthcare outcomes. 

Malnutrition cases decreased, and HIV-positive residents gained better access to ARV medications. Additionally, more families could afford to send their children to school rather than relying on them for labour. 

As a result, school attendance rates soared while dropout rates plummeted. 

Despite these positive outcomes, economists argued that the pilot was too small-scale and short-term to assess the long-term economic impacts. 

Nevertheless, theNamibiangovernment has periodically revisited the BIG concept. 

Late last year, the gender ministry announced the conversion of the Food Bank Programme and Marginalised Communities Special Feeding initiative into a monthly household cash payout of N$600. According to the ministry, 8 238 households currently receive the BIG payout nationwide. 

Furthermore, data collected in 2023 revealed that approximately 12 699 additional households qualify for registration. 

While BIG has undeniable merits, Namibia’s structural weaknesses make it a risky proposition. 

If rolled out to all citizens aged 0-59, the BIG is estimated to cost the government around N$14 billion annually. 

Given the country’s economic challenges, including a bloated civil service that consumes nearly half of the national budget, can the government realistically afford another welfare programme? 

Some concerns injecting unconditional cash into the economy without corresponding productivity gains could drive up prices, ultimately harming the very people the BIG seeks to help. 

Furthermore, a nationwide BIG rollout might divert attention from addressing the root causes of poverty, such as income inequality, a failing education system, healthcare deficiencies, housing shortages, and an underperforming agricultural sector. 

Another critical concern is corruption and mismanagement . Namibia has a history of wasteful spending, as seen with programmes like TIPEEG. 

A poorly managed BIG could suffer the same fate – either being exploited by elites or lost in bureaucratic inefficiencies. 

There is also the risk of fostering a dependency mentality, where recipients become disincentivised to seek employment or acquire new skills, particularly among the youth. Instead of serving as a temporary boost, the BIG could morph into a permanent subsidy, further straining the economy. 

Namibia possesses substantial untapped potential in key sectors such as agriculture, Agro-processing, and mineral resource value-addition areas that could drive sustainable economic growth, reduce poverty, and create long-term employment opportunities. 

For instance, fully utilising dormant green schemes could reduce food imports, boost local production, and generate thousands of jobs. 

Similarly, expanding beef exports projected to reach US$712.5 billion by 2030 to lucrative markets like the European Union and China could revitalise rural employment and increase national revenue. Additionally, Namibia’s world-class mineral deposits, including rare earth elements, such as lithium, dysprosium and terbium, present opportunities for local processing, energy production and partnerships with global tech and electric vehicle giants like Tesla, BYD and Siemens. 

However, an over-reliance on BIG could strain public finances, forcing the government to borrow excessively and exacerbating national debt. 

This, in turn, could divert funds away from productive investments that yield long-term economic benefits. While the BIG may offer short-term relief, strategic investments in key sectors present a more sustainable path to prosperity. 

Namibia must carefully weigh the immediate advantages of a BIG against the potential long-term risks to its economic stability. 

*Titus Hamakali holds an Honours Degree in Public Management from the University of Namibia.