Utilisation of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme's Learning Material Allowance for Higher Education Students: A Perspective of a South African University
ABSTRACT
Public higher education institutions in developing countries have faced a steady increase in student enrolment, driven by historical factors such as the expansion of access to education following the end of apartheid in South Africa and other policies aimed at addressing socio-economic inequalities. This increase, however, has led to challenges in adequately meeting the growing demand for resources and services, often resulting in institutions operating at or beyond their ideal capacity. Coupled with a reduction in state funding, these conditions have uncertained the future of higher education financing. This study examines how university students in South Africa use the book allowance provided by the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS). The study employed a survey strategy to collect data from 358 randomly selected university students using a structured questionnaire. The findings revealed that only 19.3% of students used their book allowance to purchase academic textbooks. The study highlighted that external financial pressures, such as family obligations and living expenses, led to the diversion of funds away from textbooks. Additionally, many students opted to purchase information and communication technology (ICT) devices, reflecting a shift from traditional print media to digital learning materials. All demographic groups, including gender, age and academic faculty, observed this trend. However, the study found that students from lower socio-economic backgrounds were more likely to reallocate their allowances due to greater financial pressures. On the basis of these findings, the study recommends implementing more differentiated funding mechanisms that account for varying poverty levels among students, increasing support for affordable online academic resources, providing targeted financial literacy programmes and improving accountability in using financial aid.
1 Introduction
The transformation of South Africa's higher education system since the end of apartheid has been marked by significant efforts to expand access, redress historical inequalities and promote social mobility. One of the most critical interventions in this regard has been the introduction of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) in 1999. NSFAS was established to provide financial assistance to academically eligible students from low-income households, facilitating participation in higher education for previously excluded students due to structural and economic barriers (Sehoole and Adeyemo 2016). The scheme has contributed to a substantial increase in enrolments among black, coloured and Indian South Africans and has been widely recognised as a key driver of equity and inclusion in the post-apartheid higher education landscape (Spaull 2019; Mbhalati 2024).
Despite these achievements, the expansion of financial aid in South African universities has revealed a complex set of tensions between policy objectives and students' lived realities. Among the components of NSFAS funding is the Learning Material Allowance (LMA), which is intended to enable students to acquire essential academic resources such as textbooks, stationery and digital learning tools. In principle, this allowance represents a strategic intervention to ensure academic success through improved access to learning materials. However, in practice, the utility of the LMA has been shaped by the socio-economic conditions under which many students pursue their studies. For a significant portion of the student population, especially those from impoverished households, the LMA often becomes a flexible source of income used to meet a broader set of needs that extend well beyond academic materials—including food, transport and financial support for dependents (Wildschut, Megbowon, et al. 2020; Mohamedbhai 2014).
This tension raises critical questions about the adequacy of student funding in the context of persistent poverty, unemployment and inequality. While NSFAS is arguably one of the most extensive social investment programmes targeting young people in the country—far exceeding the individual value of other forms of social grants such as the Child Support Grant or Old Age Pension—it remains limited in its ability to address the multidimensional financial pressures experienced by students. For many recipients, the Learning Material Allowance (LMA) is simultaneously insufficient to cover the full cost of textbooks and indispensable as a resource for economic survival. This phenomenon calls into question the extent to which financial aid structures, as currently designed, account for the material conditions under which education is pursued by the most vulnerable.
This article examines how undergraduate students at a South African university utilise the NSFAS Learning Material Allowance, focusing on their choices, the trade-offs they negotiate and the social and economic contexts that shape their decision-making. By analysing student experiences and narratives, this study offers a grounded account of the disjuncture between state policy intentions and the realities of students' financial precarity. It argues that using the LMA must be understood not merely as an issue of individual spending behaviour but within the broader structural constraints that shape student agency. In doing so, the article contributes to ongoing debates on student funding, equity in higher education and the implications of massification in the context of limited state resources and widening inequality.
Through this lens, the study offers insights into how well-intentioned financial aid policies may inadvertently place students in a position where they are forced to choose between academic investment and economic survival. It further highlights the need for higher education funding models to be responsive to the costs of academic participation and the everyday financial realities that mediate student access, retention and success.
2 Literature Review
The escalating cost of higher education in South Africa poses significant barriers to participation for students from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. While the state has made important strides in expanding financial aid through mechanisms such as the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS), questions persist regarding the adequacy, utilisation and impact of these interventions—particularly the Learning Material Allowance (LMA). This section critically engages with the literature on student funding, material access, poverty and academic success, specifically focusing on the intersection of structural inequality and individual agency within South African higher education.
Multiple studies underscore that financial aid recipients in South Africa face a complex set of constraints that go beyond tuition coverage. While NSFAS has improved access, it does not comprehensively account for the everyday costs of student life, including transport, housing, food and academic materials (Oyelana 2017; Wildschut, Rogan, et al. 2020). These pressures are compounded by the fact that NSFAS serves a highly diverse socio-economic cohort, ranging from students from households with zero income to those with annual incomes of up to R350,000 (Wildschut, Rogan, et al. 2020). The heterogeneity within this cohort means that students face vastly different financial realities and, consequently, adopt varied strategies to survive and succeed within the university system.
Research highlights that students often confront material deprivation even when tuition and prescribed allowances are provided. Studies by Sabi et al. (2020) and Govender et al. (2022) find that many NSFAS beneficiaries remain food insecure and lack adequate access to learning materials despite the explicit provision of the LMA. This suggests a mismatch between policy intentions and lived realities. Naidoo and McKay (2018) argue that student poverty in South Africa is not merely a financial condition but one with profound academic and psychosocial consequences, including high dropout rates and reduced engagement. Munro et al. (2013) show that the inability to access essential academic tools directly undermines students' learning capacities and performance.
Moreover, students increasingly utilise material allowances like the LMA to meet broader household needs. Mngomezulu et al. (2017) found that students from low-income backgrounds often allocate a portion of their allowances to support family members, cover living expenses, or respond to emergencies, thus limiting their capacity to purchase prescribed academic materials. While these spending decisions may be perceived as misuse, they are often rational and necessary choices under poverty and structural precarity conditions. This reflects what Oyelana (2017) terms the ‘invisible costs’ of student life—expenditures not officially recognised in funding frameworks but crucial for student survival.
Nevertheless, a contrasting discourse problematises the use of the LMA for non-academic purposes. Scholars such as Nxumalo (2020) and Shaturaev (2021) point to instances of what they describe as financial indiscipline, where students purportedly engage in excessive or inappropriate spending, resulting in poor academic outcomes. These accounts often invoke narratives of ‘abuse’ and ‘lavishness’, suggesting a moral or behavioural failure on the part of the student. However, such perspectives often overlook the structural conditions under which these financial decisions are made and risk pathologising poverty rather than addressing its root causes.
At the core of these debates are two intersecting tensions in the literature: the adequacy versus accessibility of funding and the misuse versus survival interpretation of student spending behaviour. On the first, Ayuk and Koma (2019) note that while accessibility has improved, the adequacy of funding—particularly in covering non-tuition expenses—remains in question. On the second, the interpretation of how students use their allowances often reflects broader assumptions about poverty, responsibility and accountability.
Accountability theory provides a useful conceptual lens to explore these tensions. Vance et al. (2015) and Hall et al. (2017) argue that the absence of monitoring and oversight mechanisms in disbursing financial resources weakens accountability and may lead to unintended uses of funds. Mngomezulu et al. (2017) extend this argument by linking inadequate financial literacy, peer pressure and institutional inaction to misallocating student resources. Under the earlier voucher-based LMA system, book purchases were more tightly regulated. However, the current system—where funds are deposited into student accounts—places the burden of responsible spending on individuals without offering the necessary support structures. As a result, personal accountability becomes an unrealistic expectation in the absence of institutional support and economic stability.
Furthermore, the psychological and social effects of perceived or actual poverty on student identity and academic belonging are significant. Shange (2018), building on the work of Edwards and Cangemi (1990), finds that students who internalise their material deprivation often report feelings of alienation, marginalisation and diminished academic motivation. Material inadequacy, thus, manifests not only in unmet academic needs but also in declining mental health and self-efficacy—factors that further exacerbate dropout risks.
Taken together, the literature paints a complex picture of student funding in South Africa: one that is caught between policy ideals and the harsh realities of poverty, inequality and under-resourced institutions. While the LMA is intended to bolster academic performance through improved access to learning materials, its use by students as a multi-functional survival tool underscores the inadequacy of current funding models. This study positions itself within this body of scholarship to interrogate how the LMA is utilised and the meanings, decisions and consequences that emerge from its usage within the everyday life of a student navigating structural deprivation.
2.1 Student Funding Adequacy Versus Equality: A Contextual Debate
The South African higher education landscape is among the most socio-economically diverse globally, shaped by a legacy of structural inequality that continues to manifest in student access and success. Drawing parallels with debates from the United States, particularly regarding school funding, South African scholars have increasingly engaged with the conceptual tension between equality and adequacy in student financial aid (Howe 2013; Diem and Wolter 2019). While the principle of equality aims to offer uniform support to all students irrespective of their background, adequacy calls for differentiated funding based on the unique socio-economic circumstances of individual students (Sahlberg and Cobbold 2021; Masutha and Motala 2023).
The equality perspective has historically focused on levelling the playing field—ensuring all students, regardless of race, class, or geographic location, have equal opportunities to succeed academically (Howe 2013). This approach assumes that once equality of opportunity is achieved, performance differences would reflect individual merit. However, critics argue that this model insufficiently accounts for persistent structural barriers, such as poverty, disability and familial financial burdens, which disproportionately affect certain student groups (Giesinger 2014).
In contrast, the adequacy model proposes that funding must be calibrated to meet the actual needs of students, taking into account the depth of socio-economic deprivation. For example, within the NSFAS-funded cohort in South Africa, students may range from those in households with no income to those from homes earning up to R350,000 annually (Wildschut, Megbowon, et al. 2020). Despite being grouped under the same funding scheme, these students' lived experiences and resource needs differ significantly. Low-income students often face compounded burdens such as food insecurity and the pressure to financially support their families, whereas students from comparatively better-off backgrounds might be more susceptible to identity-related consumption pressures (Mngomezulu et al. 2017).
These intra-cohort disparities challenge the effectiveness of a uniform funding model and highlight the need for a more nuanced approach. Blanket allocations in the name of equality risk perpetuating inequities by ignoring the varying levels of deprivation students experience (Naidoo and McKay 2018). In response, education scholars and policy analysts advocate for a weighted funding model that systematically accounts for socio-economic disadvantages, including income level, disability and migration status (Hanover Research 2015). Under this model, students are assessed and assigned weights based on their level of need, which in turn influences the amount of support they receive (Institute of Educational Sciences 2019). This ensures that those facing multiple forms of disadvantage receive more substantial assistance, thus promoting a more equitable form of access and academic support.
Internationally, weighted funding has been recognised as a potential mechanism to reconcile equality and adequacy. Ladd (2008) argues that this model enables institutions to tailor support more precisely to students' needs by indexing aid to a set of academic and socio-economic indicators. In the South African context, however, weighted funding is currently applied only at the institutional level—resulting in differentiated budgets for universities, but not necessarily for individual students (Department of Higher Education 2015). While this may acknowledge disparities between institutions, it falls short of addressing the varying levels of need within student populations.
The implementation of weighted student-level funding could therefore represent a critical step toward enhancing fairness in the distribution of educational resources. Without such differentiation, equal financial aid packages may, in practice, result in unequal outcomes—particularly for students whose academic potential is constrained by chronic poverty, social exclusion, or other systemic barriers. This debate raises a broader question central to this study: should equity in education be pursued through equal treatment or through proportionate support that addresses structural disadvantage?
2.2 Utilisation of Book Allowance: Between Misuse and Abuse
The discourse on student financial aid is increasingly concerned with the utilisation, and at times misappropriation, of allocated funds. In this context, the use of the book allowance—intended specifically to support the purchase of academic materials—has come under scrutiny. The Cambridge Dictionary (2022) distinguishes between misuse, defined as the use of ‘something in an unsuitable way or in a way that was not intended,’ and abuse, which involves using ‘something for the wrong purpose in a way that is harmful or morally wrong.’ These distinctions are critical when examining student behaviour around the allocation of financial support.
Mngomezulu et al. (2017) argue that although many students deviate from the intended use of the book allowance, these actions often reflect misuse rather than abuse. For students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, financial aid decisions frequently involve difficult trade-offs. For example, a student may use book funds to support a dependent family member or to cover basic living expenses, which may be seen as a pragmatic, if unintended, reallocation of resources. Such constrained choices underscore the complexities of student agency under financial hardship, rather than deliberate moral transgression.
However, the same body of literature also identifies clear instances of abuse. Some students were reported to have used book allowances for non-essential and arguably harmful expenditures, such as alcohol, parties, or status-related consumption (Mngomezulu et al. 2017; Nxumalo 2020). These behaviours suggest a disconnection between the intended purpose of funding and actual student use, raising questions about accountability and moral hazard in the current financial aid model.
The National Council of Provinces' Portfolio Committee on Education, Technology, Sports, Arts and Culture (2020) has echoed these concerns, noting widespread challenges in monitoring and enforcing appropriate use of financial aid. Systems such as the book and grocery voucher mechanisms, although intended to restrict aid to approved vendors and products, were reportedly circumvented or exploited. Yet, the committee also noted the difficulty of distinguishing between abuse and misuse in cases where the specific motivations behind fund redirection were unknown. This ambiguity complicates the development of effective policy responses.
To address these tensions, this study considers constrained choice theory as a framework for interpreting student decisions in the use of financial aid. The theory acknowledges that individuals often make decisions within a limited set of options, shaped by structural and socio-economic limitations. In the case of financially vulnerable students, the choice to redirect book allowances may not stem from disregard for academic responsibilities, but rather from urgent material needs unmet by the current aid structure.
Thus, the debate over book allowance utilisation reveals the nuanced and often morally ambiguous space in which student financial decisions occur. While some cases clearly reflect opportunistic misuse, others highlight the inadequacy of current funding models to accommodate the broader socio-economic pressures faced by students. This underscores the importance of designing financial aid systems that are not only accountable but also sensitive to the realities of poverty and inequality in higher education.
2.3 Constrained Choice Theory (CCT)
The Constrained Choice Theory (CCT), initially developed by Bird and Rieker (2008), offers a comprehensive framework for understanding how individual choices are shaped and often restricted by multi-level structural, social and institutional constraints. Originally applied within the public health field to examine disparities in health outcomes, CCT has since been adapted across the social sciences to explore behaviour under conditions of structural limitation (Vuolo et al. 2016). The theory has particular relevance for examining the decision-making processes of university students from disadvantaged backgrounds, especially in relation to financial aid utilisation.
CCT posits that individuals situated on the margins of society—whether due to class, gender, race, disability, or immigrant status—make daily decisions within a matrix of social, policy and economic constraints (Bird and Rieker 2008). These constraints are imposed by families, communities, institutions and government policies, and they collectively limit the scope of individual autonomy. Constraints are therefore defined not only as the absence of resources but also as institutional and social pressures that shape decision-making processes and influence long-term outcomes, including academic success or failure.
The application of CCT across social science disciplines is theoretically justifiable given the relatively short theoretical distance between fields such as sociology, education and public policy (Uwizeyimana and Basheka 2017). In contrast, theories drawn from the natural sciences may exhibit a greater theoretical distance from social phenomena due to divergent epistemological and methodological approaches (Wang et al. 2021). As such, the extension of CCT to educational research is consistent with interdisciplinary theory borrowing where conceptual compatibility exists.
At the macroeconomic level, CCT conceptualises student decision-making through the lens of budget constraints. Students are compelled to make mutually exclusive consumption choices within the limits of a fixed budget. The purchase of textbooks using a book allowance, for instance, may come at the cost of reduced spending in other areas such as food, transport, or family support. This aligns with the economic interpretation of constrained choice, where individuals seek to optimise satisfaction within the boundaries of available resources, their associated costs and opportunity costs.
In the context of this study, students receiving financial aid from the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) are subject to both formal and informal constraints. On the one hand, policy guidelines explicitly state that book allowances must be used solely for purchasing academic materials. On the other hand, students experience competing demands from family, peers and social expectations, which often lead to a reallocation of funds for non-academic purposes. These pressures represent a confluence of structural, interpersonal and internal forces that collectively mediate spending behaviour.
Personal agency—manifested in students' budgeting practices, financial literacy and psychological resilience—also plays a critical role in navigating these constraints. According to Mngomezulu et al. (2017), students' financial decisions are often shaped by lived experiences and the necessity to manage complex and competing socio-economic pressures. Through the CCT lens, such choices are not purely irrational or deviant, but rather reflect an attempt to balance policy expectations with survival imperatives and personal responsibilities.
Despite its utility, CCT is not without limitations. First, it assumes that individuals act as economically rational agents who make informed choices based on full access to information—an assumption that may not hold in contexts of limited financial literacy or high uncertainty. Second, the theory places significant emphasis on marginality as the primary driver of constrained choices, yet individuals from affluent backgrounds may also face constraints based on their goals, priorities, or social contexts. Therefore, while the theory provides a useful lens, it must be applied with sensitivity to context and individual heterogeneity.
Figure 1 illustrates an adapted version of the Constrained Choice Theory, as applied to student expenditure decision-making:
In summary, the Constrained Choice Theory offers a nuanced framework for analysing student financial decision-making under conditions of structural, policy and interpersonal constraints. It emphasises the complex interplay between limited resources, institutional rules and social expectations, all of which shape students' ability to succeed within the higher education environment. This theory provides a valuable lens through which to understand the reallocation of the book allowance and the broader implications for student well-being and academic outcomes.
2.4 Constrained Choice Theory Within the Adequacy Versus Equality Perspectives
The Constrained Choice Theory (CCT) offers a valuable lens through which to analyse the ongoing debate between the principles of adequacy and equality in resource distribution. In the context of student funding, this debate is particularly relevant to understanding whether support should aim to provide equal resources for all students or ensure that each student receives sufficient resources to meet their individual needs. The constrained choice framework allows for an exploration of how the sufficiency or insufficiency of resources affects students' ability to make optimal decisions within their socio-economic realities.
CCT suggests that individuals' decisions are shaped by structural limitations, and these limitations are intensified by social and economic marginality (Vuolo et al. 2016; Mbhalati 2024). From this standpoint, the adequacy perspective becomes particularly relevant, as it recognises the importance of providing a level of support that meets students' essential needs rather than distributing resources uniformly regardless of context. Adequate funding, therefore, has the potential to reduce the burden of conflicting policy, social and economic demands by directly addressing the lived realities of students operating within multiple constraints.
However, the theory also accommodates a more dynamic understanding of constraints through its macroeconomic lens. As Gimenez-Nadal (2018) explain, an increase in income often leads to shifts in consumption patterns and the emergence of new preferences. This phenomenon introduces a paradox in which rising income levels may not eliminate constraints but rather transform and possibly intensify them. Individuals may develop new needs and aspirations that exceed prior expectations, resulting in new forms of pressure and financial trade-offs. In such instances, constraints are not solely a function of marginality but also of evolving expectations and shifting preferences.
This duality reveals the complex relationship between constrained choices and the adequacy versus equality discourse. While equality in resource distribution seeks to treat all students uniformly, adequacy acknowledges the heterogeneity of student needs and the varying degrees of constraint they face. Applying CCT, it becomes evident that a one-size-fits-all approach may overlook the depth of disadvantage experienced by marginalised students. Conversely, an adequacy-based approach aims to mitigate constraints by prioritising sufficient support rather than uniform provision.
In this study, constrained choice theory thus provides a theoretical justification for engaging with the adequacy paradigm. It frames student behaviour not as a function of personal irresponsibility, but as a product of constrained decision-making in the face of systemic and structural pressures. In doing so, it underscores the need for differentiated financial support mechanisms that align with the real-life conditions and pressures experienced by diverse student populations.
3 Funding Cuts and the Massification of Higher Education: Challenges and Debates
This study explores the complex dynamics of funding cuts and the massification of higher education, with a particular focus on the South African context. However, it is important to situate South Africa's higher education challenges within a broader global framework. Across the world, higher education systems have faced substantial funding reductions, driven by economic recessions, policy shifts and the increasing reliance on market forces. For example, in the United States, the Great Recession significantly impacted public colleges, with California's renowned public higher education system experiencing a 20% reduction in state funding. Similarly, states such as Washington, Hawaii and South Carolina, which had traditionally relied heavily on state funding, also saw comparable reductions. Such cuts, unprecedented in scale, were made possible by a shift in priorities, often resulting in a diminished quality of educational services and resources.
This global trend was not confined to the United States. Between 2008 and 2012, the global recession exacerbated funding cuts to universities in Europe, with countries such as Greece, Ireland, Lithuania and Hungary experiencing some of the most significant reductions in higher education financing. This ideological shift has often been accompanied by the commodification of education, which challenges its foundational status as a merit good and social investment (Tilak 2007).
Several key trends have emerged from this global funding crisis. Firstly, there has been a marked decline in public funding allocated to universities, often as a result of economic reforms that emphasise reducing the state's role in higher education and shifting the financial burden onto students and private entities (Sarkar and Hossain 2016). The rise in tuition fees is another notable trend. While some countries, including Brazil, Sri Lanka and certain European nations, have maintained low or no tuition fees, many others have introduced or increased tuition fees, reflecting a broader shift toward cost recovery. For instance, countries like China and the United Kingdom implemented tuition fees in the late 1990s, which have become significant revenue streams for their higher education systems (Tilak 2007).
The adoption of student loan systems has further complicated the funding landscape. Initially absent in many countries, student loans have become a common mechanism to finance higher education, though they come with their own set of challenges, including low repayment rates and rising student debt burdens (Chapman 2022). In countries such as New Zealand, South Africa and India, student loans are now offered on an income-contingent basis, reflecting a shift toward more flexible repayment models. While these schemes aim to reduce financial barriers for students, they also highlight the growing financialisation of education, which poses long-term sustainability concerns (Tilak 2007).
Moreover, universities are increasingly turning to alternative revenue sources, such as partnerships with the corporate sector, patent sales and alumni donations. These efforts to diversify funding streams are often framed as a response to dwindling public subsidies and growing financial pressures. In some cases, universities have sought to attract international students as a means of cross-subsidising domestic education costs. While this approach has allowed universities to generate additional revenue, it has also raised questions about the commercialisation of higher education and its potential to exacerbate inequalities (Gao 2021).
The implications of these global trends are particularly evident in the South African context. Following its democratic transition in 1994, South Africa made substantial efforts to increase access to higher education, particularly for historically disadvantaged groups. Central to these efforts was the establishment of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS), which aimed to provide financial assistance to underprivileged students. However, despite significant government investments—such as the R40 million allocated in 1995 and the R12.9 billion disbursed between 1995 and 2010—funding for higher education has remained insufficient to meet the growing demand for access to tertiary education (De Villiers 2017).
As the student population in South Africa expanded, particularly following the policy of massification initiated in 1994, the government's financial contributions to higher education began to fall short of expectations. In 2021, despite increasing government contributions to NSFAS, the funding system has struggled to keep pace with the rising costs associated with expanded student enrollment. This mismatch between supply and demand for educational services has been exacerbated by broader economic challenges, including sluggish economic growth, rising public debt and widespread corruption (Wangenge-Ouma 2021).
The affordability of higher education has become a central concern in South Africa, particularly in light of recent student protests that highlight the growing financial burden faced by students and their families. These protests underscore the tension between the state, students and higher education institutions, each of which faces its own set of challenges and competing demands. While the government has prioritised expanding access to higher education, the lack of sufficient funding has led to growing dissatisfaction among students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, who continue to struggle with tuition fees, accommodation costs and other related expenses (Ntombana et al. 2023).
The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated these financial pressures, as the economic slowdown led to a decrease in tax revenues and an increase in the financial strain on both families and the state. South African universities, already operating with limited resources, were forced to adapt to new operational models, such as online learning, while grappling with rising student numbers and inadequate funding. This crisis has underscored the need for a more sustainable and equitable approach to funding higher education in South Africa, one that can balance the need for mass access with the financial realities faced by both the state and higher education institutions (Wangenge-Ouma 2021).
The challenges surrounding the funding of higher education in South Africa are not isolated but part of a broader global trend that has seen public universities increasingly rely on market-based strategies and external funding sources to meet the demands of mass education. While these approaches may offer short-term solutions, they raise critical questions about the long-term sustainability of higher education systems and their ability to uphold the principles of equity, accessibility and academic integrity. As South Africa navigates these complex challenges, it will need to find innovative solutions that prioritise the public good while ensuring that higher education remains accessible to all segments of society.
4 Research Method
Data were collected through a self-administered online questionnaire, consisting primarily of closed-ended questions. The questionnaire was distributed to interested students who signed up through noticeboards, and those who volunteered were emailed the survey. Due to a lower-than-expected response rate, all the respondents who completed the survey were included in the final dataset. The data were analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 21.
Descriptive statistics, skewness and kurtosis tests were conducted to assess the data distribution. Welch's one-way ANOVA was employed to analyse differences in book allowance utilisation across gender, age and faculty. This test was chosen because the sample sizes for the groups being compared were unequal, and the assumption of homoscedasticity in one-way ANOVA was violated, while normality was maintained. Pearson correlation coefficients were computed to examine the relationships among the book allowance received, the proportion used for books and study material, level of study and duration of funding. Chi-square tests of association were used to explore associations between the book allowance received and the proportion spent on books versus other types of expenditures. The study adhered to university research guidelines and ethics policy, ensuring full participant consent, confidentiality of data and voluntary participation without incentives.
5 Data Analysis and Interpretation
5.1 Sociodemographic Data
The data were collected from a sample of 358 students from the selected university. Of these, 322 were NSFAS recipients, and some of the data analysis sections focus on these recipients only (Table 1).
| Variable | Response | Frequency | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 18–24 | 300 | 83.8 |
| 25–29 | 49 | 13.7 | |
| 30 and above | 9 | 2.5 | |
| Total | 358 | 100 | |
| Gender | Male | 162 | 45.3 |
| Female | 194 | 54.2 | |
| I prefer not to say | 2 | 0.6 | |
| Total | 358 | 100 | |
| Level of study | 1st year | 186 | 52.0 |
| 2nd year | 84 | 23.5 | |
| 3rd year | 72 | 20.1 | |
| 4th year | 14 | 3.9 | |
| Postgraduate | 2 | 0.6 | |
| Total | 358 | 100 | |
| Faculty of study | Arts | 108 | 30.2 |
| Commerce, admin and law | 209 | 58.4 | |
| Education | 20 | 5,6 | |
| Science | 21 | 5.9 | |
| Total | 358 | 100 |
5.2 Students' NSFAS Funding Status
The data on NSFAS funding status of the students is summarised in Table 2.
| Variable | Response | Frequency | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are you a recipient of NSFAS? | Yes | 322 | 89.94 |
| No | 36 | 10.06 | |
| Total | 358 | 100 | |
| If yes, for how long have you been receiving NSFAS funding? | 1 year | 169 | 47.21 |
| 2 years | 72 | 20.11 | |
| 3 years | 67 | 18.72 | |
| 4 years and above | 14 | 3.91 | |
| N/A | 36 | 10.06 | |
| Total | 358 | 100 | |
| Annual book allowance received | < R2500 | 48 | 13.41 |
| R2501–R5000 | 16 | 4.47 | |
| +R5000 | 258 | 72.07 | |
| N/A | 36 | 10.06 | |
| Total | 358 | 100 |
- Note: Table shows data on the sampled students' NSFAS funding status.
In the sample, 89.9% of the students had received NSFAS at least once, while 10.1% had never received it. Of the 322 students who had received the allowance, 47.2% had received it for a year, 20.1% for 2 years; 18.7% for 3 years and 3.9% for 4 years and longer. Most students (72.1%) received R5000 in book allowance, the modal figure being R5200. This included students who opted for a laptop of an equivalent value instead. A minority received an allowance below R2500, making up 10.1% of the sample. The results show that most selected university students received the maximum book allowance amount of R5200 per year.
An overwhelming majority (nearly 90%) of students reported receiving NSFAS funding, underscoring the fund's central role in enabling access to higher education. Almost half had been receiving NSFAS for only 1 year, suggesting a strong intake of new beneficiaries, possibly due to recent policy changes or increased awareness. The fact that 72.1% received over R5000 in book allowance suggests that the maximum available funding is common, potentially due to the standardisation of the allowance or students opting for technological devices in lieu of cash. However, the presence of students receiving below R2500 raises concerns about equity in allocation or access to alternatives like laptops.
5.3 Perceived NSFAS Book Allowance Purposes
Table 3 shows how students perceived the purpose of the NSFAS book allowance.
| Response | N | Frequency | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|
| Money for needy students to buy books | 322 | 242 | 70.4 |
| Money for students to buy additional study material | 322 | 174 | 51.4 |
| Money for students to buy groceries | 322 | 27 | 7.5 |
| Money for technological studies' facilities | 322 | 45 | 12.8 |
| I don't know | 322 | 3 | 1.1 |
- Note: The table shows how students responded to the question ‘To the best of your knowledge, what is the purpose of the NSFAS book allowance.
Out of 358 students, 70.4% acknowledged that the book allowance was money given to needy students to enable them to buy books, and 51.4% stated that it was for buying additional study material. Also, 12.8% believed it was money for supporting technological studies, while 7.5% thought it was meant for groceries. Only four students (1.1%) did not know what it was for. Most of the students knew what the allowance was for, but a concerning percentage of the sample was not fully aware of its purpose.
The findings show that while a majority of students correctly understand that the NSFAS book allowance is intended for purchasing books (70.4%) and additional study materials (51.4%), a smaller but notable proportion perceive the allowance as applicable to groceries (7.5%) or technology-related expenses (12.8%). This misinterpretation may explain later patterns in how the allowance is actually spent. The low percentage of students who were unaware of the allowance's purpose (1.1%) suggests that misinformation is not widespread, but the blurred understanding of what qualifies as educational support could lead to misuse or misallocation of the funds.
5.4 Book Allowance Proportion Used for Books and Study Material
The proportion of the book allowance used for books and study material is summarised in Table 4.
| The proportion used for books and study material | Frequency | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| 0% | 37 | 11.5 |
| 1%–25% | 32 | 9.9 |
| 265–49% | 33 | 10.2 |
| 50% | 43 | 13.4 |
| 51%–75% | 47 | 14.6 |
| 76%–99% | 68 | 21.1 |
| 100% | 62 | 19.3 |
| Total | 322 | 100 |
| Mean | 4.5 | |
| Standard deviation | 2.005 | |
| Kurtosis | −1.115 | |
| Skewness | −0.388 |
In response to the question—By estimation, what percentage or proportion of your last book allowance did you use on prescribed books and study material?—322 students who received the book allowance, 19.3% used it all for books and study material, leaving 260 who used it for other purposes. These 260 students were asked to describe the other uses they put the allowance to.
The spending patterns reveal that only 19.3% of students used their entire book allowance on prescribed books and study material, with the majority allocating a portion—or none—toward other uses. This indicates a deviation from the intended use of the allowance and highlights potential gaps in regulation or monitoring. The skewed distribution, as reflected by the negative kurtosis and skewness values, suggests a tendency among students to divert funds from academic to personal needs, possibly due to broader financial insecurity or competing priorities.
5.5 Book Allowance Proportion Used for Books and Study Material Versus Expenditure Choices
Table 5 highlights students' responses on the book allowance proportion used for books. There were statistically significant Chi-square tests of associations between the proportion of book allowance used to purchase books and the following expenses: ICT gadgets (X2(6) = 56.23, p = 0.00); home utensils (X2(6) = 23.22, p = 0.00); groceries and daily living expenses (X2(6) = 24.1, p = 0.01); transport and communication (X2(6) = 36.12, p = 0.00), and sending money to support their family (X2(6) = 44.39, p = 0.00, Table 6).
| The proportion used for books and study material | F | N | X2 | df | Sig. | Cramer's V (φc) | Sig. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Home utensils | 34 | 260 | 23.22 | 6 | 0.00 | 0.27 | 0.00 |
| Groceries and daily living expenses | 58 | 260 | 24.1 | 6 | 0.00 | 0.27 | 0.00 |
| Send money to support family | 86 | 260 | 44.39 | 6 | 0.00 | 0.37 | 0.00 |
| Transport and communication | 79 | 260 | 36.12 | 6 | 0.00 | 0.34 | 0.00 |
| Rentals | 32 | 260 | 22.89 | 6 | 0.00 | 0.27 | 0.00 |
| ICT gadgets | 131 | 260 | 56.23 | 6 | 0.00 | 0.42 | 0.00 |
| Proportion used for books and study material | Allowance received | Level of study | Duration as receiver | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Proportion used for books and study material | ||||
| Coefficient | 1.000 | 0.146 | −0.130 | −0.112 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | — | 0.009 | 0.020 | 0.044 |
| N | 322 | 322 | 322 | 322 |
| Allowance received | ||||
| Coefficient | 0.146 | 1.000 | 0.166 | 0.144 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.009 | 0.003 | 0.010 | |
| N | 322 | 322 | 322 | 322 |
| Level of study | ||||
| Coefficient | −0.130 | 0.166 | 1.000 | 0.851 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.020 | 0.003 | — | 0.000 |
| N | 322 | 322 | 322 | 322 |
| Duration as receiver | ||||
| Coefficient | −0.112 | 0.144 | 0.851 | 1.000 |
| Sig. (2-tailed) | 0.044 | 0.010 | 0.000 | — |
| N | 322 | 322 | 322 | 322 |
The strongest Cramer's V recorded in the association between the proportion of book allowance spent on books and type of expenditure was 0.47 on the purchase of ICT gadgets. Post hoc Cramer's V test showed a very strong association (0.37) between the proportion of allowance used for books and study material and sending part of the allowance home. There was also a moderately strong association between the proportion of allowance used for books and study material and home utensils purchases (0.27) and another moderately strong relationship between purchasing groceries and living expenses (0.27). Thus, students spending less of their book allowances for what was not intended exhibited strong tendencies to buy ICT gadgets, support family and use transport and communication. Further tests were carried out on the bivariate relationships among the following variables: proportion used for books and study material, allowance received, level of study and duration as a receiver.
5.6 Book Allowance Proportion Used for Books and Study Material Versus Numerical Variables
There was a weak positive relationship between the proportion of book allowance used for books and study material and allowance received (Rho = 0.146, p = 0.009). Thus, a unit change in allowance relates to a 14.6% increase in the proportion used for books and study material. There was a negative, weak relationship between the proportion used for books and study and the following: level of study (rho = −0.13, p = 0.02) and duration one has received the book allowance (rho = −112, p = 0.04). In these instances, an increase in the level of study and duration one has received funding results in (but does not cause) a weak decrease in the book allowance proportion used for books and study material. As students spend more time at university, they tend to use less and less of the allowance for books and study materials.
The bivariate correlations also show weak positive relationships between book allowance received and level of study (rho = 0.16, p = 0.053) and duration as a receiver (rho = 0.144, p = 0.01). Thus, as students advanced through their studies, they were likely to face a slight increase in book allowance received. Finally, the correlations show a very strong positive correlation between allowance duration and level of study (rho = 0.855, p = 0.00). As students moved from one level to another, they faced an 85.5% probability of receiving the allowance.
5.7 Book Allowance Proportion Used for Books and Study Material Versus Age, Gender and Faculty
Welch's ANOVA results on the proportion of book allowance used for books and study material and allowance received as a dependent variable and student gender, age and faculty are presented in Table 7.
| ANOVA | Levene's | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | df | Sig. | Levene | df | df | Sig. | ||
| Gender | 1.136 | 2 | 17.663 | 0.344 | 1.07 | 2 | 319 | 0.344 |
| Age | 7.081 | 2 | 2.924 | 0.076 | 2.553 | 2 | 319 | 0.079 |
| Faculty | 0.682 | 3 | 49.424 | 0.567 | 1.146 | 3 | 318 | 0.331 |
ANOVA tests further show no statistically significant differences in the proportion of book allowance spent on books and study material among students of different genders and age groups and from different faculties. This suggests that these variables were not major differentiating factors in how students used/misused/abused book allowances. Other dynamics, including socio-economic background, could explain such differences.
6 Discussion
This study critically examines the impact of the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS) book allowance funding process on South African university students' use of their book allowances. The findings indicate that a substantial proportion of the book allowance was diverted from its intended purpose—purchasing prescribed academic materials—toward other non-academic expenditures. The most common alternative use identified was the purchase of digital devices. This shift aligns with global trends emphasising the growing importance of digital learning tools and resources, as highlighted by Ebied and Rahman (2015) and Makwanya and Oni (2019), who discuss the increasing integration of digital technologies in education. The reallocation of funds from physical books to digital devices indicates a transition in student learning preferences, from traditional printed textbooks to digital content, both free and paid.
The significant adoption of digital devices, however, raises important questions regarding the extent to which these devices were used exclusively for academic purposes. While digital technologies offer clear educational benefits, their multifunctionality means they are often employed for non-academic purposes, such as communication, entertainment and social media. This dual-purpose use was highlighted by van Schalkwyk (2019), who noted that students frequently use digital devices not only as academic tools but also as status symbols or personal gadgets. The fact that digital devices serve multiple purposes complicates the issue of whether the book allowance is being used primarily to enhance academic engagement. Thus, while the purchase of digital devices can be seen as beneficial in the context of modern learning environments, it simultaneously introduces the risk that funds designated for academic materials might be misallocated for non-academic use, undermining the core objective of the NSFAS book allowance.
Further compounding the issue is the evidence that students were often compelled to divert their book allowances to meet immediate, non-academic needs, such as sending money home to support their families, covering transport costs, purchasing groceries and paying for accommodation. This finding underscores the role of socio-economic pressures in influencing students' financial decisions. Bird and Rieker's (2008) constrained choices theory offers a useful lens through which to understand this behaviour. The theory posits that individuals from economically disadvantaged backgrounds are often confronted with limited options and must make difficult choices between competing needs. In this context, students may prioritise survival over academic needs, reflecting the broader socio-economic challenges faced by low-income students in South Africa. Mngomezulu et al. (2017) argue that students from impoverished households often experience psychological pressure to financially support their families, a burden that may force them to redirect their allowances, thereby undermining their academic focus.
In line with this, the study found that over 30% of students were unaware that their book allowance was intended specifically for the purchase of books, and almost 50% did not know it was meant for study materials. These findings point to a significant gap in financial literacy and awareness among students regarding the intended use of their allowances. This lack of understanding is a key factor contributing to the misuse and misallocation of funds, as students are not fully aware of the academic restrictions placed on their allowances. Obagbuwa and Kwenda (2020) and Obagbuwa et al. (2021) have similarly observed that financial illiteracy among students exacerbates the improper use of financial aid. This situation highlights the importance of clear communication regarding the purpose and intended use of financial aid, which is critical in ensuring that allowances are spent effectively for educational purposes.
The South African government's decision to provide students with more financial autonomy, by transferring control over allowances, reflects a broader policy shift toward empowering students with the ability to manage their finances. However, as evidenced by the findings of this study, this increased autonomy also comes with unintended consequences. While the government's approach is grounded in the idea of providing students with financial freedom and fostering self-management skills, it inadvertently opens the door to misuse or misdirection of funds. According to Vuolo et al. (2016), personal capacity plays a significant role in how students navigate financial decisions, especially in the face of competing needs. Students from low-income backgrounds, who may not have the financial literacy or personal resources to effectively manage their funds, are particularly vulnerable to making choices that undermine their academic success.
The study's findings challenge the argument put forward by proponents of the new policy who emphasise its potential to reduce administrative overhead and increase student autonomy. While these arguments are valid, they fail to account for the socio-economic pressures that students face, particularly those from severely disadvantaged backgrounds. As Thobejane and Fatoki (2017) and van Schalkwyk (2019) have noted, financial aid should be structured in a way that accounts for these pressures, rather than assuming a one-size-fits-all model. This study, therefore, raises important questions about the adequacy and equity of the current NSFAS funding model. Students at the lower end of the income spectrum often struggle to meet basic survival needs and are more likely to divert their book allowances for non-academic purposes. Mhlongo (2019) argues that while students from higher-income families often use the book allowance as a supplement to meet their academic needs, their counterparts from lower-income families are forced to reallocate funds to support their families, thus exacerbating inequality.
In terms of policy implications, the study suggests that while financial autonomy is beneficial, there is a need for more targeted and nuanced funding mechanisms. Weighted funding, which takes into account the socio-economic disparities among students, could help ensure that those most in need receive the necessary support for academic success. Advocates of adequate funding (Howe 2013) argue that students from extremely low-income backgrounds should receive more substantial support, as their financial challenges are often far more pressing than those faced by students in higher income brackets.
The study also examined the influence of socio-demographic factors—such as gender, age and faculty—on book allowance utilisation. One-way ANOVA tests revealed no significant differences in how students allocated their book allowances across these variables. This finding is consistent with previous studies by Thobejane and Fatoki (2017) and van Schalkwyk (2019), who observed no significant variation in spending patterns based on gender or faculty. This suggests that the challenges associated with misallocating book allowances are widespread and not confined to particular demographic groups or academic disciplines. This underlines the universality of the financial pressures faced by South African university students, regardless of their socio-demographic background.
While the shift toward greater financial autonomy for students through the NSFAS book allowance policy has the potential to empower students, it also introduces significant challenges, particularly for those from low-income backgrounds. The misdirection of funds toward non-academic purposes, such as family support and survival expenses, reflects broader socio-economic realities and underscores the need for a more equitable and adequately targeted funding system. Policymakers must take into account these socio-economic pressures and consider the implications for academic success when designing financial aid systems. A more nuanced approach to student funding, one that considers the diverse needs of students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds, is crucial for ensuring that financial aid truly supports academic achievement and reduces barriers to higher education in South Africa.
7 Conclusion and Recommendations
The study found that the constrained choices theory could help explain students' dwindling use of book allowance to purchase books and related study material. This occurred on multiple independent levels. Policy changes that led to reduced control on how and where book allowances can be used increased student choices, thereby removing a constraint. The analysis revealed that students could increase the purchase of ICT gadgets as more economical and multifunctional substitutes for textbooks. On a different level, there was evidence of severely constrained budgets as students had to meet unintended expenditures that included funding their families. This also reduced the proportion of funding available for books and strengthened the views that giving students from diverse backgrounds the same amount of student aid in the name of equality grossly disadvantaged those from extreme poverty. It also created a wide misconception that all students were living affluent lifestyles, as there were reports of students from ‘not-so-poor’ backgrounds who also received NSFAS support spending lavishly. The study concludes that constraining budgetary circumstances had resulted in misuse rather than abuse of book allowances and recommends more weighted approaches that consider differences in the extremities of student poverty. Substituting textbooks for ICT gadgets is both a budgetary coping mechanism and a response to digitalisation as a global trend affecting academia. The study recommends considering adjusted weighted systems that take a deeper assessment of student poverty differentials while also caring about the socio-psychological need for fitting into an academic setting. The study also recommends increased investment in freely accessible online repositories, Wi-Fi and data to support the growing academic digitalisation option. It also frees students' meagre resources, reducing financial constraints, especially among the poorest. It also recommends financial literacy mechanisms that help students manage budgetary constraints and elements of accountability that ensure that students can direct their book allowance to suitable uses.
Author Contributions
Mfundo Mandla Masuku: conceptualization, methodology, project administration. Victor H. Mlambo: writing – original draft, formal analysis. Nduduzo C. Ndebele: writing – review and editing, resources, investigation.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Open Research
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
