Can “Education” solve South Africa’s high level of unemployment? (Part II)

South Africa’s unemployment rate has sky-rocketed to a staggering 30,1% in the first quarter of 2020. This means that of the roughly 24 000 000 people in our labour force, over 7 million are currently unemployed. This unwanted statistic puts South Africa in the Top 20 list of ‘Highest unemployment rates’ globally.

The long-held notion that improving the level of education (and subsequently the standard of education) will be a viable and trusted way to lower the unemployment rate is a logical red herring. In this post I hope to provide evidence to show why “education” (or lack thereof) in its current form, cannot be blamed for South Africa’s high unemployment rate.

Clarifying Terms and Definitions

Firstly, a clarification must be made in terms of this articles main subject, Education. Education as we know it in a South African context, is considered a public good. However, the notion of education as a public good is based firmly within an economic framework and although it is considered a human right, the track record of education as a human right in South Africa clearly indicates otherwise[1].

Noting, now, that education is an economic public good, has economic characteristics (where the end goal is profit making) and that this form of economic education has as its main objective the development of very specific people for very specific economic roles (which have specific purposes), we must differentiate it from education as a human right. Education as a human right is fundamentally distinct from education as an economic public good and our understanding of education in this economic context should not be confused with education as envisaged in the Freedom Charter of 1955.

Human Capital Theory

Any discussion on economic unemployment cannot be fruitful without understanding the fundamental idea of ‘Human Capital Theory’. For this discussion, I will use as a definitional base, Professor Gustafsson’s[2] illustration on Human Capital Theory (HCT) used in his Economics of Education Course at the University of Witwatersrand in Johannesburg. I will then expand on this illustration using a range of readings.

HCT[3] is a theory in Economics that sees a high value (both normative and economic) placed on human capital and education. In other words, it is a view that the more a person is educated, the higher a person’s income will be. Rose argues that this understanding has been peddled by Capitalist governments and International Organizations such as the World Bank (WB), despite there being ample evidence to the contrary.

Briefly defined, households calculate whether or not they should educate their child by looking at the potential income the child will provide from being educated. They then subtract the opportunity costs that will be foregone if the child is educated as well as the direct costs (such as books, tuition, transport, etc) of educating the child. This is known, in Economic circles, as the Private Rate of Return. It is this equation that drives the education of children in households and helps to decide whether or not education should be undertaken. The same philosophy lies behind broader National Educational Systems influenced by Neoliberalism; South Africa included. The term ‘Rate of Return’ in Education is one that is synonymous with Human Capital Theory. It is this term that modern governments use to justify various policies and programmes. The basic premise is to identify which group of people will allow the greatest economic return on the educational investment. A brief unpacking of this term follows.

Education systems across the globe develop skills (also called learning outcomes) in its learners. For example, the South African CAPS curriculum has a host of skills at the various exit points[4]. These skills have been developed in order for learners to contribute to the economy. The skill of understanding numerical literacy is vital when considering that Economists and Mathematicians must be able to count, understand complex equations and calculate multifariously. These skills are then ‘rated’ accordingly to ensure uniformity. Educational Compliance Authorities have therefore developed structures that ‘rate’ the skills/learning outcomes obtained. These help to bring a sense of national (and even international) unanimity. In South Africa, the National Qualifications Framework (NQF) was introduced in 2012, which saw all forms of education in the country integrated into “a single framework that facilitated access to, mobility and progression within, education, training and career paths”. Interestingly, South Africa’s NQF levels have been exported and are now being used throughout Africa, which underlines the growing importance of HCT in Neoliberal Globalized developing countries[5].

HCT focuses on the skills obtained and uses the qualification framework as a means of accountability. These skills that have been obtained, are what Human Capital Theorists say promotes productivity and propels the Economy forward. The reasoning behind this is logical: better and improved skills mean the possibility of higher production output. Higher Productivity means higher GDP. Better skills in a country also means better ways of problem-solving issues in the country. As a nation improves its ability and skills, it can earn higher incomes (across the board for all inhabitants), which generally also means improved social development.

The problem arises when governments and organizations such as the WB, begin using what is clearly an Economic term ‘Rates of Return’ to define Educational outcomes and monetarize something that cannot be monetarized, i.e. education as a human right. The WB has become the biggest educational investor across the globe and also the main instigator and ‘educational expert’ of implementing ‘Rates of Return’ within governments. South Africa has not been exempt from this phenomenon. Our educational landscape has changed dramatically with the implementation of Neoliberal policies, which has culminated with the hijacking of the term “education”. Education is no longer truly seen as a human right, but only as a means to an economic end. The Freedom Charter of 1955 has been forgotten and replaced with Verwoedian’ Market Policies.

What are the implications of the HCT for employment in South Africa?

The most important implication has been aptly summarised by Dr. Mike Van Graan who says,

“In some ways it [the way the State sees education] is quite Verwoerdian[6]… people are essentially cogs in a capitalist machine.”

This means that people are forced to conform into the economic mould that has prevailed in society. If a student does not show proficiency in any of the skills deemed as important by the state, he/she is deemed unfit and is either tossed out of the educational system or quickly regarded as dead weight (in an economic sense) and encouraged to apply for the meagre unemployment grant available by the State[7]. These people are what Prof. Badroodien refers to as ‘disposable youth’. Disposed of by society because they do not fit into the educational mould which ultimately has an economic purpose. Education in this economic sense can never solve our unemployment rate. 7 000 000 people are being tossed out of the system due to their unsuitability for the economy, or due to the fact that there are simply not enough jobs to go around.

What are some possible solutions?

Firstly, education should be more than just an economic public good. Basic Primary Education should be delivered as a fundamental human right of the highest quality to all learners. BottomUp theorizes this solution:

“ALL schools should be classified as “no-fee” schools, and that NO SCHOOLS should charge fees. This must also necessarily be linked to a revision to our tax system to raise the needed funds to improve school provisions across the board. To do so, is to reimagine schooling entirely and to establish a truly public system of education in South Africa, and this could include in-sourcing present SGB employed teachers and support staff (since they are needed).”

Undertaking such an endeavour will ensure that education is provided holistically as a human right to all learners. Finland undertook this costly approach in 1968 (when they were not in a strong financial position) and is now regarded as the best educational system globally.

Secondly, as Inglesi-Lotz and Gerlagh point out, government “should focus on creating an environment with policies that are supportive to economic growth”. One such policy, I suggest, would be to merge the manufacturing sector and the educational CAPS curriculum so that skill levels link directly into post-matric manufacturing jobs. This should be State-sponsored and State-run, with the sole intention of making use of ALL available human capital, irrespective of skills available. Linked to this idea would be the notion of making this paid “public service” mandatory for a minimum of two years. The experience and skills gained by the young labour force in these two years will, I believe, create an impetus and momentum to encourage entrepreneurship. This is education. Encouraging learners to excel without the notion of pulling themselves up by their bootstraps or the idea that they must conform in to certain pre-defined moulds to succeed. The biggest problem is an economic one where there are not enough jobs to go around. This economic problem can ONLY be solved by an economic response and there therefore must be some intervention by government to create long lasting jobs[8].

Lastly, looking at the WB’s Education Strategy 2020 document  it is clear to see that the WB is all about return on investments, despite the jargon of providing education and eradicating inequality in the educational sphere. The biggest return on investment for the WB is no doubt Primary Education, and is subsequently the area that is targeted amongst developing countries for investment. I suggest, however, that primary education should be funded solely by the State and that the educational sphere that should be inundated with funding and investment (from private sources if need be) is the tertiary sector. It is this sector that can make the biggest contribution to society (in the form of inventions, business ideas, medical cures, engineering feats, etc), when handled correctly and equitably.

In summary, the education system needs to re-imagined and re-ordered so that the narrowly focused idea of HCT is not the driving force of education and the economy. Instead, an approach that sees education being treated as a basic human right (across the board and equitably) joined together with other sectors where everyone can contribute something while benefitting, will I believe yield better results and lower the unemployment rate.

[1] There are numerous schools across the country that still do not have basic access to water and sanitation, textbooks, proper classrooms, adequate educators, etc. This denotes a basic denial of human rights to these people.

[2] Gustafsson is Associate Professor at Wits and focuses on Economics in Education –

[3] Human Capital Theory has its origins in Adam Smith’s work, but it was Jacob Mincer and Theodore Shultz who popularized the theory.

[4] The Learning outcomes of the Curriculum Assessment Policy Statements (CAPS) can be found on multiple pages within the document/s itself –


[6] Hendrik Verwoerd was the architect of apartheid and famously called for a controlled economic state in which only the white minority benefitted. See

[7] The value of this grant has been included in the ‘Rate of Return’ calculation of education investment. It is therefore worth noting that it is currently cheaper for the government to continue paying out this meagre grant than to re-order the education system! Motive to continue with the current unequal and unjust system.

[8] This is evidenced by the fact that our streets are littered with educated people who are seen with street sign begging for jobs. See

Truth, skepticism and opportunity in 4IR

by Dr. Leyla Tavernaro-Haidarian,
Ph.D. Department of Communication. University of Johannesburg

The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) with its emergence of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence, cloud computing or robotics and the general fusion of what we have traditionally thought of as the separate realms of the digital and organic is frequently met with awe and skepticism.

Central among concerns is the idea that ‘truth’ has never been more compromised. News of fake news and doubts around the legitimacy of sources or the underlying motives of those who manipulate information is a point of consternation. Yet was truth ever really more accessible to us than now or any less skewed? Whose truth were journalists telling during apartheid in South Africa? And by contrast, what social injustices are being exposed by cell phone recordings of police in the United States today? Maybe it is not so much the technologies we have at our disposal, then, but the way in which we engage and communicate that determines the reliability of truth and communication in this era.


One way to engage is to draw on our individual capacity to evaluate information. By this is meant avoiding herd mentality or blind imitation and instead probing and questioning, challenging and researching everything from news to scientific data. But the search for truth is not only an individual endeavor. Lessons drawn from the global Covid19 response show that besides accuracy, two vital components of successful communication are meaning making and empathy, both of which depend on our ability to relate to others. There is a collective dimension to considering a diversity of perspectives and experiences. So, evaluating the vast amounts of sometimes paradoxical information available requires both independent thinking and collaborative faculties.

Collaboration, however, has not been systemically pronounced from one industrial revolution to the next. Influenced, in part, by a Hobbesian perspective, we still largely define how we relate to others in terms of competing interests and fundamental distrust. We think of our affairs as incompatible with those of others and we subsequently organize social life as a contest. This shapes not only every aspect of our democratic processes (particularly in the West) but also our academic debates, journalistic routines and our legal system. As a result, any possibility of a collective search for truth is sidelined by partisan posturing and the relentless pursuit of winning an argument or case at all costs. What this produces, at best, is a narrow, reductionist perception of reality.

Yet a different way of relating to others is conceivable. Since our views are shaped by the way we were raised, by our experiences and our social positions, access to the complete picture or to ‘Truth’ with a capital T can be seen as relative. In this light, collaborating with people who grew up to think differently from us becomes enriching and paramount because it completes our blind spots. By foregrounding our interconnectedness and by collaborating, exchanging and deliberating, we are better positioned to discover a wealth of nuances and complexities. However, this is only possible if we base ethical decision-making in non-partisan collaboration and in joint and participatory consultation.


Moving away from the premise that our relationships must be characterized by a “war of all against all” and towards the assumption that “I am because we are”, enables us to gain a fuller sense of reality and helps us to transcend false and limiting dichotomies. From within this vantage point, the digital and organic, science and religion and many other seemingly incompatible realms can be seen as complementary and as completing each other rather than separate or competing with each other. In this context and only through collective will, the tools and technologies of 4IR (can) become less of a threat for deception and individual gain and more of an opportunity to enhance quality of life for our planet and the entire human family.

Dr. Leyla Tavernaro-Haidarian, Ph.D., is a senior research associate with the University of Johannesburg, a leadership development consultant for UNSSC and an education specialist for UNODC. Leyla regularly lectures and keynotes at fora such as TEDx, the US State Department, and NATO Building Integrity. Her areas of expertise include communication, gender, ethics and governance. She is also a published writer with a particular interest in the normative moral theory of Ubuntu. She serves on the editorial board of two international journals and is a member of the International Association of Media and Communication Research as well as the South African Young Academy of Science. For the Austrian Baha’i Community, she manages the social discourse portfolio of its Office of Public Affairs. Social Media handles: @/lavidaleyla