Abstract
The aim of this paper is to assess the spatial impacts of universal old age pension on sustainable livelihoods of the elderly in Lesotho. It uses sustainable livelihoods framework to analyse primary data collected from field work done in an urban and a rural community to assess the differential spatial impacts of the universal old age pension on sustainable livelihoods in Lesotho. The working hypothesis of the research was that the universal old age pension provides the elderly with access to some income to use for access to basic needs for livelihoods but that this impact varies in space between rural and urban communities. The results indicate that the impacts are viewed as positive by interviewees, but slightly differ in urban and community settings. The paper concludes that in general the universal old age pension promotes equal access to income for all people above 70 years. Although the impacts of this income differ between rural and urban communities, they ensured that the elderly people were not left behind in access to livelihoods and therefore promoted inclusive development. However, there were also some challenges that need policy attention for the pension to contribute more sustainable impacts in both rural and urban areas of Lesotho. The overall conclusion was that, spatially, the impacts of the universal old age pension were felt more in the rural than urban area of the study.
Highlights
Lesotho is a small land locked state of 30355 square kilometres in size surrounded by South Africa in southern Africa
The findings of the study reveal that universal old age pension has positive impacts and challenges for the elderly recipients both in the urban area and rural area alike
The major findings were that old age pension recipients interviewed in the samples in the study areas were happy with it as a strategy to relief them from and help them in poverty reduction
Summary
Lesotho is a small land locked state of 30355 square kilometres in size surrounded by South Africa in southern Africa. In 2003 the top 10% of households lived on 40% of all income and the bottom 10% only shared the remaining 1% of national income; while in 2003 the top 20% had access to 56% of national income compared to the bottom 20% who shared only 3% of the national income (index mundi, undated). This inequality of income has implications for inequality of access to basic services such as education, health, energy
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
