After 18 years of democracy South African government is still faced with challenges such as high levels of unemployment, inequality and high levels of poverty. There have been various policies, poverty alleviation programmes and projects that have been established in an effort to eradicate poverty. According to Gathiram (2005: 123) despite these efforts, poverty in South Africa has worsened. The challenge has been that a number of such projects have not been properly implemented and as a result, they were not sustainable. This paper investigates the reasons for some of these poverty alleviation projects to be successful and others to be apparently unsustainable. The research focuses on two poverty alleviation projects in Chris Hani District Municipality. The research methodology used is descriptive study. The findings of this report revealed that some of poverty alleviation projects are sustainable and some are not sustainable. The study reveals factors contributing to sustainability of poverty alleviation projects. The study recommends the sustainable development approach as an approach that can assist in the sustainability of poverty alleviation projects.

Amartya Sen argued that poverty was the “deprivation” of the capability to lead a “good life”, therefore ending poverty meant meeting basic physical and social needs, and enabling meaningful economic and political choices. The principal objective of this research was to investigate whether (and if so, in what ways) post-apartheid state-provided non-contributory cash social grants in South Africa reduced “poverty” in Sen’s sense. This thesis used Ezibeleni, a historically black working class township at Queenstown, in the Eastern Cape, as a reference area. Using in-depth interviews, it found that social grants did help reduce poverty, both in terms of helping meet basic needs and enabling grant recipients to make more choices, including facilitating job searches and small businesses. However, it was also found that grants fall short of ending poverty, as the grants were too small to adequately cover basic needs in the context of large family sizes, a serious and long-term lack of resources, persistent unemployment, and high indebtedness, and could also enable only a limited expansion of choices. The grants played a positive role, but were inadequate to remove the “unfreedoms” facing the poor.