Study: Stokvels can boost food security if buying habits shift

Community savings groups known as stokvels have the buying power to improve household diets but currently prioritise cheap, long-lasting foods over nutrition, a University of Cape Town study finds. The research, published in the Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior and reported on 2 October 2026, examined grocery stokvels in Dunoon and Khayelitsha.

What researchers studied

The study interviewed 20 stokvel leaders and ran focus-group discussions with 40 members. All 20 groups reported bulk buying, but in 19 of them (95%) members did not explicitly consider nutrition or healthy eating when choosing what to purchase. Only one group said nutritional value formed part of its buying decisions.

Why cheap, shelf-stable foods dominate

Researchers found purchasing choices were driven by affordability, quantity and durability. Staple foods, sugar, cooking oil and processed meats were among the items most commonly bought. The study describes logistical constraints that make fresh foods harder to include: limited refrigeration, transport costs and long distances to wholesalers. Standardised grocery hampers also favour products that survive transport and remain usable over time.

Stokvel structure and bargaining power

Typical stokvels in the sample had between 10 and 30 members, with each person contributing between R200 and R1 500 a month. All groups operated according to formal rules, and 85% imposed penalties for rule-breaking. Members pooled money, compared prices, sought discounts and sometimes dealt directly with supermarkets or wholesalers, giving them leverage when negotiating prices.

Researchers’ view on working with stokvels

Lead author, UCT health economist Dr Akim Tafadzwa Lukwa, said stokvels already possess the foundations required for a nutrition programme. He is quoted in the study:

“They have trust, accountability, regular meetings, collective decision-making and, importantly, substantial purchasing power. The challenge is to find ways of using these existing structures to increase preference for healthier food while making them affordable and practical.”

Practical interventions suggested

The study recommends fitting nutrition-sensitive interventions into existing stokvel routines rather than remaking the groups. Potential measures listed include:

• Retailer-negotiated food bundles containing more nutritious products
• Subsidies or vouchers to reduce the cost of healthier items
• Short nutrition discussions during ordinary stokvel meetings
• WhatsApp messaging with recipes, meal-planning guidance and information on affordable healthy food

On the intent behind such measures, Lukwa is quoted:

“The idea is not to change what stokvels are or to impose an external agenda on them. Nutrition-sensitive interventions would need to fit into existing practices and priorities, while giving members practical options that make healthier purchasing possible within their budgets.”

Limitations and reach

The study notes stokvels are overwhelmingly led by women 95% of the groups surveyed were women-led and many value household responsibility, dependability and mutual support. Those qualities could make meetings useful spaces for conversations about dietary diversity and meal planning.

However, researchers cautioned stokvels are not a universal solution. Some groups exclude younger people or those with irregular incomes because they rely on members who can contribute reliably. The study says stokvels should be seen as a complementary platform rather than a replacement for broader food security and public health programmes, and that any intervention must consider who is reached and who may be left out.

Conclusion

The central finding is clear: stokvels have influence over communal food purchasing. The study asks whether that influence can be redirected so collective buying power delivers not only more food, but better food while working within the practical and financial realities of the groups themselves.