Unemployment is one of SA’s most pressing challenges. It is a national crisis that permeates every conversation, every family gathering and every corner of society. And, because it is such a painful reality, the numbers we publish on jobs — or the lack thereof — tend to spark intense debate.
Let me start with an important reminder: Stats SA does not take sides in these debates. We do not advocate for policies, nor do we shape political agendas. Our role is simple but vital — we measure. We analyse. We explain. And we will not tire of explaining.
Tiisetso Motsoeneng argued in his most recent column that the overhaul of the labour survey must focus on measuring job quality, not just quantity, or else its findings may be misused (“Stats SA’s new jobs survey can’t allow nuance to become political cover”, August 18).
It also suggested that Stats SA is finally “catching up” in addressing informality in the labour market. This critique, while well-intentioned, misses an essential point: Stats SA has been systematically capturing informal employment in SA for years.
The Quarterly Labour Force Survey (QLFS), which we have conducted for over two decades, is a robust, nationally representative household survey. It covers all segments of the labour market — formal, informal, agricultural and private households.
As of the second quarter of 2025 the QLFS shows that about 3.3-million South Africans are employed in the informal sector. These are people working without contracts, running unregistered businesses or selling goods without fixed premises.
The survey asks direct questions on registration, business size and tax compliance to ensure that these activities are properly captured in the data.
To suggest that we are only now catching up is misleading. In the first quarter of 2025 alone our data identified 1.9-million own-account workers and close to 953,000 employers — together representing a vital segment of SA’s workforce. These numbers did not appear by accident; they are the result of a carefully designed statistical approach.
The real reason we are updating the QLFS instrument is not because of a CEO’s comments or pressure from the media. It is because international standards require us to do so. The International Conference of Labour Statisticians (ICLS) has introduced new classifications that broaden our understanding of labour underutilisation.
These include concepts such as the potential labour force — those who want work but are not actively searching — and time-related underemployment. Importantly, the definitions of “employment” and “unemployment” remain unchanged.
We are not alone in this. Around the world countries are at different stages of adopting these new ICLS resolutions. Zimbabwe is busy with the pilot. Mexico plans to implement them by 2026. About 28 countries globally have taken steps towards adoption. SA is among the leaders; we piloted it in 2024 and are implementing it in 2025. Far from lagging behind, we are aligning ourselves with global best practice.
Comparisons between countries must therefore be approached with caution. An article by Ciaran Ryan recently asked: “SA jobless 32.9%: Zim 8% — why the discrepancy?” The answer lies in how different countries classify work. In Zimbabwe, for instance, a large share of the population is engaged in subsistence farming.
In SA, by contrast, the regulatory environment and economic structure are different, and this is reflected in our labour statistics. To compare the two without recognising these differences is to risk drawing the wrong conclusions.
Another important aspect is timing. Stats SA pays close attention to when labour data is collected. For example, the third quarter tends to be the most stable and is therefore our focus for implementing changes.
The first quarter often reflects a surge of new entrants — school leavers and graduates — into the labour market. The fourth quarter is influenced by seasonal hiring for the festive period. Each quarter tells a different story, and context is key in interpreting the numbers.
Throughout all of this one principle guides us: independence. The Statistics Act of 1999 protects the work of the statistician-general and Stats SA from political interference.
This independence is not just a legal technicality — it is the foundation of public trust in official statistics. It allows us to publish numbers even when they are uncomfortable, to correct misinterpretations when they occur, and to resist pressure to bend the data to fit any agenda.
I am fully aware that statistics can be misapplied. Politicians, journalists, analysts, CEOs and even members of the public may sometimes use numbers out of context, whether deliberately or unintentionally. Part of our duty as a national statistics office is to correct those misinterpretations, patiently and consistently.
Unemployment will remain one of SA’s toughest problems to solve. But let us not mistake the messenger for the message. Policy choices — not statistics — will ultimately create jobs. Stats SA’s role is to ensure that those choices are based on sound evidence. And so we will continue to measure, report and, above all, explain.
We measure unemployment. And we will not tire of explaining what those numbers mean.
• Maluleke is SA’s statistician-general and head of Stats SA.
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.