In his journal article “Intimate Crimes: Heroin and the Rise of Amaphara in South Africa”, Mark Hunter (2021) defines amaphara as South African slang, probably derived from the word parasites.
It is commonly used to describe young people, often struggling with drug addiction, associated with petty crime, dishevelled appearances and living in townships.
The term gained wider prominence around 2010, reflecting the growing visibility of this group in urban spaces.
While Hunter’s definition highlights social marginalisation and criminality, it is limiting.
The term iphara can also describe individuals who provide informall services such as assisting with grocery transport, offering car parking assistance or specialising in trolley deliveries in towns and taxi ranks, usually for small payments.
However, this definition should not be taken to mean that all people hustling in these ways are amaphara.
The involvement of many others in such informal activities reflects diverse survival strategies in a country characterised by high unemployment.
Across South African cities, it is common to see men pushing trollies around retail stores and taxi ranks as part of their daily hustle.
They are often perceived as lazy, yet their daily routines suggest otherwise.
Many wake up as early as 4am to begin work, sacrificing sleep to secure income.
In fact, they ooften rest fewer hours than those employed in the formal economy, who are typically regarded as hardworking.
This contrast challenges thee stereotype of laziness and highlights resilience required to survive in informal labour.
The perception of laziness stems from theirr inability to endure long hours in formal and physically demanding sectors such as construction.
However, their preference lies in working under self-determined conditions, free from employer-employee contracts, recruitment processes or regulated hours.
The work they perform is demanding, but its purpose is immediate survival rather than long-term career progression.
This cycle of survival is evident in their daily priorities.
The question arises whether recognising this survivalist economy could provide the missing piece in policy and employment creation strategies in SA
Once they earn enough to afford basic necessities such as food, meat, alcohol, cigarettes or addictive goods, their workday ends, only to resume the following morning.
This pattern reflects what can be described as a survivalist economy, where individuals focus on immediate needs rather than long-term financial planning.
Amaphara exemplify this survivalist approachh by avoiding formal employment contracts, banking systems and loans, instead relying on daily earnings that sustain them without delays of fortnightly or monthly salaries.
When debt is incurred, it is typically minimal and short-term, often repaid the following day through the next day’s earnings.
The question arises whether recognising this survivalist economy could provide the missing piece in policy and employment creation strategies in SA.
Policymakers may be better positioned to design interventions that reflect how people survive, rather than relying solely on formal labour market assumptions.
However, government responses often overlook such informal activities, viewing them pprimarily as threats to safety rather than potential contributors to livelihoods.
Yet, regulation need not dismantle the informal structure that makes this economy attractive participants.
Recognition could mean creating industries that pay workers daily, aligning with their survival priorities.
Concerns about banking systems and taxation may be overstated, as amaphara already operate outside the formal structures.
The real issue lies in addressing crime, which Hunter emphasises in his definition.
Daily payment systems could potentially reduce petty crime, since amaphara would be guaranteed income without resorting to theft.
It is likely that some readers will critique this approach, suggesting that daily wages might encourage substance abuse and reinforce the cycles of addiction.
However, attempts to chase amaphara off the streets may only push them into more serious crimes such as housebreaking.
Yet some are relatively harmless, engaging in working during the day and retreating into cycles of drinking or smoking at night, only to resume hustling the next morning.
The recognition of the survivalist economy of amaphara should be led by the national government, supported by research and consultation.
Local government responses are insufficient for addressing national socioeconomic challenges.
A co-ordinated approach would allow for policy development that acknowledges informal economies as part of the South African broader employment landscape.
Employment in the formal sector is not the sole measure of value in job creation.
Any activity that enables individuals to put food on the table should be recognised, while illegal practices must be discouraged.
The survival economy of amaphara, if properly understood and regulated could provide a crucial missing link in addressing unemployment and reducing other social ills in SA.
Recognising and integrating these informal livelihoods into national policy would mark a decisive step toward a more inclusive and realistic employment strategy.
Masonwabe Tikana is a second-year PhD candidate in Development Studies at Unisa and serves as director of planning and economic development at the Walter Sisulu Local Municipality. He writes in his personal capacity.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.