Court overturns tariffs imposed by Donald Trump and orders return of nearly $100 billion

Despite the reduction in petrol price by 52 cents per liter, which came into effect on Wednesday, human rights groups warn that rising diesel and kerosene prices could intensify pressure on food costs and household purchasing power.

Industrial associations, trade unions, and civil organizations note that high transport costs and food prices continue to place significant strain on the budgets of low-income individuals.

These latest adjustments came several weeks after Statistics South Africa reported an acceleration of annual consumer inflation to 5% in June, the highest figure in two years. Although food and non-alcoholic beverage inflation slowed to 1.6%, annual transport inflation reached 12.7%, largely driven by a 34.3% increase in fuel prices.

Statistics South Africa also recorded an 11.5% monthly increase in minibus taxi fares, an 8.7% rise in app-based ride-hailing services, and an 8.4% increase in intercity bus fares.

The South African Petroleum Retailers Association (SAPRA) welcomed the decrease in petrol prices but warned that the overall fuel situation remains challenging because higher diesel costs continue to burden both businesses and consumers.

The Motor Industry Staff Association (MISA) shared similar concerns, stating that the latest change will bring uneven relief. Martle Cater, MISA's Chief Executive Officer for Operations, noted: 'We are glad for any relief at the petrol pump, but we cannot rejoice in a skewed adjustment that increases the cost of paraffin for the poorest families and diesel for the entire food supply chain.'

He added that workers cannot bear the double burden of high transport and food costs. 'When the price of petrol falls, but the price of diesel rises, retailers and taxi drivers should not use this as an excuse to maintain high prices. The benefit must reach the household budget, not disappear along the way.'

MISA emphasized that the increase in paraffin prices will disproportionately affect millions of low-income households that still use this fuel for cooking, heating, and lighting, while the rise in diesel prices is likely to exert additional upward pressure on the cost of transporting food and other essential goods.

However, for organizations working directly with vulnerable communities, the latest fuel price change reflects a much broader issue of affordability. Dr. Annette May, Project Coordinator at the Development Action Group (DAG), stated that rising transport costs are putting increasing pressure on households already struggling to afford rent and other vital expenses.

According to her, Statistics South Africa estimates that over two-thirds of the country's poorest households spend more than 20% of their monthly income on public transport, with other studies indicating figures up to 40% of family income.

In May's view, many families are forced to make impossible financial decisions. 'At certain points in the month, households may be forced to choose between paying for transport to work or sending children to school, which directly affects both educational opportunities and household income.'

She also noted that after exhausting free basic quotas for water and electricity, many families are forced to decide which vital service to pay for. 'When electricity becomes unaffordable, many households switch to cheaper alternative fuels, which can be less safe for residents and the environment. At the same time, shrinking household budgets often lead to less nutritious diets, contributing to long-term health deterioration.'

May also warned that financial strain increases housing insecurity. 'Inflation and rising transport costs put additional pressure on already strained household budgets. As a result, many households are at greater risk of falling behind on rent payments and struggling to pay for basic services.'

She warned that this could lead to disputes with landlords, water or electricity cut-offs, and, in severe cases, eviction.

The Pietermaritzburg Economic Justice & Dignity Group (PMBEJD), which publishes the Household Affordability Index, stated that the latest fuel price changes highlight the gap between statistical inflation data and the daily reality faced by low-income families.

The organization pointed out that affordability is determined not only by food inflation but also by the combined cost of transport, electricity, housing, and other necessary expenses.

PMBEJD noted that although overall food inflation has slowed in recent months, households continue to face serious financial pressure as wages and social grants do not keep pace with the actual cost of a basic diet and other monthly needs.

According to PMBEJD, many families are increasingly buying less food, opting for cheaper and less nutritious alternatives, postponing the purchase of essential household goods, and reducing electricity consumption just to make it to the end of the month.

The organization stated that significant relief will require broader measures to improve household affordability, including strengthening public transport, protecting consumers from the cost of living increases, and ensuring that wages and social protection better reflect the real cost of living.

The union GIWUSA stated that the latest inflation data hides the problems faced by working households. The union argued that while food inflation has slowed, transport costs continue to reduce workers' incomes, leaving many households with less money for food, rent, and other necessities.

GIWUSA called for more active government intervention to reduce the cost of transport, food, and other essential services, arguing that current market conditions continue to place a disproportionate burden on low-income households.

A question arises as to why the South African economy feels worse than official statistics suggest. This issue causes frustration among citizens, economists, and policymakers. Although it is claimed that the economy continues to grow, inflation is under control, and the financial system is stable, millions of South Africans feel they are falling behind.

The answer lies in the demographic factor, which is almost entirely absent from public discussion—population growth. Since the mid-1990s, South Africa's population has increased by more than 50 percent, and this fact fundamentally changes the understanding of most of the country's economic indicators.

It is important to note that population growth itself is neither a positive nor a negative phenomenon. In economies with strong investment, increased productivity, and rapid job creation, growing populations can become a powerful economic asset, as more workers generate a larger volume of output, and more consumers expand markets.

However, the reverse is also true. When economic growth remains moderate for a long time, every additional citizen increases the burden on the economy. The need for building new schools, staffing clinics, providing housing, and developing roads, power grids, water supply, and public transport increases, and most importantly, the need for creating new jobs.

The South African economy continued to grow, but the growth rates were insufficient to provide jobs, income, and opportunities for the rapidly growing population. This is why aggregate GDP can present a distorted picture. GDP reflects the size of the economy but does not show what portion of that economy is available to each citizen; therefore, economists analyze GDP per capita.

In the first two decades after gaining democracy, economic growth outpaced population growth, and real GDP per capita steadily rose, improving living standards. However, this trend has changed over the last decade: economic growth has slowed down while population growth has continued. As a result, GDP per capita has stagnated, and in some years, even declined. Thus, people's dissatisfaction is justified—they are experiencing what economists call 'per capita contraction.'

The economy continues to produce more output than before, but this is not enough for every resident of South Africa to receive a significantly larger share of that production. The available economic space per person has stopped expanding.

Weak per capita growth intensifies competition for jobs and creates increasing pressure on education systems, hospitals, housing stock, municipal services, and public finances. Even when government spending increases, citizens often do not notice visible improvements because additional resources must be distributed among a constantly growing population.

Public discussion often boils down to the assumption that the solution is achieving an annual economic growth rate of five, six, or even seven percent. While such growth would indeed transform the country's prospects, the difficulty lies in the fact that economies at South Africa's level of development rarely maintain such a high pace for long. Experience from middle-income countries shows that a target near four percent is already ambitious.

Expecting consistently higher growth requires exceptional levels of investment, productivity gains, and export expansion, which only a few countries achieve in the long term. This reality forces the recognition of an important truth: if exceptionally high economic growth is unlikely, then prosperity cannot depend solely on growth. The other side of the equation is the rate of population expansion.

This analysis is not intended to blame population growth for South Africa's economic difficulties. According to a report by the Institute of Inclusive Society, the main limiting factor for stronger economic activity remains the lack of investment. Population growth does not cause weak growth, but it exacerbates its consequences by distributing limited benefits among an ever-increasing population.

The Institute's own modeling demonstrates this point. Assuming the current job creation rate is maintained, the Institute estimates that if South Africa's population grew in line with the average of middle-income countries, the current elevated unemployment rate would be several percentage points lower. The same number of jobs would lead to better employment outcomes simply because there would be fewer competing new entrants.

Nevertheless, there are encouraging signs. The demographic transition in South Africa has already begun: birth rates have decreased, and population growth is gradually slowing down. This is a positive development because it means that future economic growth will be more effectively converted into an improvement in living standards. The problem is that this transition is not yet complete, and population growth continues to exceed the growth rates of many comparable middle-income countries, meaning the economy still faces greater demographic pressure than its peers.

South Africa's long-term prosperity will depend on two complementary processes: firstly, stronger investment-driven growth that brings the economy closer to its productive potential; and secondly, a further slowdown in population growth within the country's ongoing demographic transition, allowing the benefits of growth to be distributed among a slowly expanding population.

Neither of these factors alone will be sufficient. However, together they offer the most realistic path toward sustainable improvement in employment, income, and living standards. This is the missing link in the South African economic debate—not just the speed of economic growth, but the number of people that growth must support.