Invisible among the vulnerable: a nuanced perspective of energy poverty at the intersection of gender and disability in South Africa

The paper investigates how the intersection of gender and disability shapes multidimensional energy poverty in South Africa. Energy poverty—insufficient access to affordable, modern, and sustainable energy—remains pervasive globally and acutely so in sub-Saharan Africa. Existing studies often use unitary perspectives, examining gender or disability separately, and rarely consider mediating pathways or multidimensional measures suited to developing contexts. Motivated by intersectionality theory, the study poses three questions: (1) Does the intersection between gender and disability affect the incidence of multidimensional energy poverty? (2) Through which channels (e.g., life dissatisfaction and food insecurity) does this effect occur? (3) Do energy interventions (notably South Africa’s Free Basic Electricity subsidy) moderate the relationship? The study contributes by adopting an intersectional lens, identifying mediating mechanisms, testing the moderating role of subsidies, and using micro-level South African data with a multidimensional energy poverty index.

Grounded in intersectionality theory, the review argues that single-axis analyses (gender-only or disability-only) obscure heterogeneity and the compounded disadvantages faced by individuals with multiple marginalized identities. Gender-energy literature highlights women’s constrained access to clean energy and participation in energy systems due to cultural, educational, and technological barriers. Disability-energy literature shows higher energy needs and costs alongside lower incomes, increasing energy deprivation among persons with disabilities in the UK, EU, and Africa. The authors hypothesize: H1: The intersection between females and disability positively correlates with energy poverty. Potential mediators are identified: life dissatisfaction and food insecurity, both more prevalent among women with disabilities and associated with higher energy poverty (H2 and H3). The review also considers the role of energy subsidies, noting mixed evidence on effectiveness and calling for context-aware targeting. H4: Energy subsidies will reduce energy poverty prevalence among females with disabilities the most.

Data: Nationally representative General Household Survey (GHS) of South Africa using a multi-stage sampling design across all nine provinces. Context: Despite high electrification (~85%), rising electricity prices and affordability challenges persist; South Africa implements a Free Basic Electricity (FBE) program providing 50 kWh/month to indigent households. Measurement: Energy poverty is measured via the Multidimensional Energy Poverty Index (MEPI) following Lin and Okyere (2022b) and the Alkire-Foster framework. Three equally weighted dimensions (each 1/3): electricity access, cooking fuel, and end-use and energy service. Indicators include grid/renewable access, use of biomass for space heating, lighting, cooking, and water heating, ownership of radio/TV, community Wi-Fi access, and dwelling wall condition. Within dimensions, indicator weights are evenly allocated (e.g., 0.111 for indicators in end-use and energy service; 0.0833 for each of four cooking indicators). The deprivation score ranges 0–1. Key independent variable: Female_disability, coded 1 if the household head is female and reports difficulty in at least one of six functional domains (hearing, seeing, cognition, mobility, self-care, communication), 0 otherwise. Covariates: Income (log), education, marital status, household size, age, wealth terciles, urban/rural (non-metro), province fixed effects, and other location controls. Estimation strategy: Baseline fractional regression (bounded dependent variable) estimates the association between female_disability and the MEPI score, controlling for covariates and location fixed effects. Robustness checks include Propensity Score Matching (nearest neighbor and propensity score matching) to address selection/endogeneity, Lewbel 2SLS to construct internal instruments under heteroscedasticity, and alternative models: logistic regression using a binary energy-poor threshold (>=0.333), beta regression (dropping 0 and 1), Poisson and ordered logit models. Mediation analysis: Structural Equation Modeling per Baron and Kenny’s two-step to test mediators: life dissatisfaction and food insecurity. Mediation judged by significance patterns across equations, Sobel test for indirect effects, and ratio of indirect to total effect (RIT). Moderation analysis: Interaction model tests whether receiving FBE (electricity subsidy) moderates the effect of female_disability on energy poverty by including an interaction term (female_disability × subsidy) alongside main effects and controls.

- Baseline associations: Female-headed households are less likely to be energy poor than male-headed households; persons with disabilities are more likely to be energy deprived. When focusing on intersectionality, both male and female heads with disabilities face higher energy poverty, with a stronger effect for females. - Magnitudes: Female household heads with disabilities are about 3.9% more likely to be energy poor; male counterparts about 2.4% more likely. Accounting for female and disabled main effects, the interaction remains positively associated with energy poverty. - Robustness: PSM confirms females with disabilities are 1.6% to 2.6% more likely to be energy poor, depending on matching algorithm. Lewbel 2SLS diagnostics indicate non-weak instruments and results align with baseline (supporting H1). Alternative models corroborate: logistic regression shows 13.6% higher likelihood of being energy-poor; beta regression 2.9% higher; Poisson 2.6% higher; ordered logit 12% higher for females with disabilities. - Mediation (mechanisms): Food insecurity increases among females with disabilities by about 4.6% and is positively associated with energy deprivation; it mediates roughly 19% of the total effect (RIT=0.190) with a significant Sobel test, supporting H3. Life dissatisfaction is higher among females with disabilities and is associated with higher energy poverty; it mediates about 15% of the effect (RIT≈0.145), supporting H2. - Moderation (subsidies): Receiving electricity subsidy (FBE) reduces energy poverty by about 2.3% overall. For females with disabilities, the subsidy is more effective: the interaction indicates about a 5.6% reduction, rising to approximately 10.4% reduction when controlling for both main effects and the interaction. This supports H4.

The findings address the research questions by showing that intersectional vulnerability—being a female with a disability—significantly increases multidimensional energy poverty beyond single-axis effects of gender or disability. This supports intersectionality theory and underscores that women are not a homogeneous group; disabilities compound disadvantages in energy access and affordability. Mechanism analyses reveal that life dissatisfaction and food insecurity partially explain the higher energy deprivation among females with disabilities, identifying actionable pathways for intervention. The moderation analysis demonstrates that targeted subsidies like South Africa’s FBE can effectively reduce energy poverty, with the largest benefits accruing to females with disabilities. These results inform policies aiming to achieve SDG 7 by emphasizing intersectional targeting and addressing psychosocial and material mediators (wellbeing and food security).

The study advances energy poverty research by applying an intersectional lens to the gender-disability nexus, using a multidimensional measure tailored to a developing context. It shows that females with disabilities face the highest energy poverty risk; life dissatisfaction and food insecurity partially mediate this effect; and electricity subsidies are particularly effective for this group. Policy implications include: integrating gender- and disability-sensitive indicators into energy policies; prioritizing energy subsidies and interventions for households facing multiple vulnerabilities (e.g., women with disabilities); and incorporating components that reduce food insecurity and improve life satisfaction to enhance energy transition outcomes. Future research should examine additional mediators such as job security and leverage richer expenditure data and longitudinal designs to strengthen causal inference and generalizability.

The analysis is constrained by data limitations: only two mediators (life dissatisfaction and food insecurity) could be examined, while other plausible pathways (e.g., job security) were not available. Detailed household energy expenditure data were unavailable, motivating the use of a multidimensional index rather than expenditure-based measures. Implementation heterogeneity of the Free Basic Electricity program across districts may affect subsidy exposure and measurement.