Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
14 March 2019 | Story Opinion Article by Prof Francis Petersen | Photo Sonia Small
Prof Francis Petersen
Prof Francis Petersen, Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS.

2019 is the year of the national general elections in South Africa – 8 May is when South Africans will have an opportunity to vote and to impact change, hopefully for the better.  But the beginning of 2019 saw the resurfacing of student protests, mainly driven by issues of registration, challenges associated with the National Student Financial Aid Scheme (NSFAS), student accommodation, safety of students (off-campus), insourcing, and various other issues influenced by local institutional context.
  
Challenges for university vice-chancellors

Our Constitution promotes protest, but emphasises the peaceful nature thereof, and that it should not infringe on the rights of others or damage property.  However, the protests experienced by the majority of higher-education institutions in South Africa in 2019 was exactly the opposite – disruption of classes, intimidation and victimisation, disrespect and often destruction of property.  A notion or approach of almost entitlement, even if the university management was willing to engage and was constantly open to assess ways and means to resolve these issues.  The drive for these protests was short-term gains, totally divorced from the long-term implications on the institution’s welfare.  This puts the university management under enormous pressure, sometimes feeling exposed and alone in ensuring that the institution remains sustainable – financially, as well as from an infrastructure and human resource perspective.

There is no doubt that the upcoming elections are used for political lobbying, tactical manoeuvring, and undermining to demonstrate political muscle – all playing out on our university campuses and to be managed by university vice-chancellors (VCs) and their executives.

Are universities not the pillars of knowledge in society, the providers of human capital and new knowledge to ‘lubricate’ our economy, the delivery of the next generation of professionals who will shape how our society, or a new South African citizenship should look like?  If this is the case, who are protecting our universities, who is standing with our VCs and university executives to ensure that our universities remain the beacon of hope for generations to come?  What is expected of VCs and university management in situations where there is a continual push for more, and if the response is not positive or immediate, protests, and in most instances violent and criminal behaviour. My personal view is not to securitise or militarise our campuses, but to resolve these issues through continuous engagement – but what if protests becomes violent and criminal?  What if disruptions challenge or threaten students, staff, infrastructure, and the academic project?  Student leaders seem to have forgotten the engagement with university leadership through a principle of ‘give and take’, always balancing short-term wins with the long-term sustainability and growth of the university.

Although universities often have their own internal disciplinary processes, these are slow, and the transgressors are often repeat offenders.  The sanctions are also in many cases restorative – which I believe it should, but to what end?

Help needed to ensure sustainability of universities 

We have seen how weak leadership, corrupt practices, and inadequate government funding have had a detrimental effect on the overall state of universities in the rest of the continent.  This has led to the outflow of excellent academics from the continent to elsewhere on the globe – a loss for the university and the continent!  Universities, although resilient, are also fragile as a system.  The protests associated with the #Rhodes and #FeesMustFall movements, together with the continued protests in 2019, run the risk of putting South African universities on a similar trajectory.  A fragile university system, when broken, will take decades to be restored.

Therefore, if universities are important institutions for society and the country, should there not be more concerted efforts from government and society to ensure that our universities remain strong and competitive? Although I do not offer a specific solution per se, should government, together with university leadership, staff, and students not be more vocal, thinking of a mechanism to curb and/or disallow immediate disruptions and the breakdown of infrastructure, and show visible support to university leadership in an effort to continue the academic project?  Our universities are performing extremely well against global counterparts, keeping in mind the current (and the past 10 years) South African economic growth and investment constraints with respect to infrastructure, research, and high-level scientific equipment – even a more critical argument to protect these national assets.

Academic project remains crucial

I am not for a moment belittling the issues raised by students and student leaderships – in fact, most, if not all of these issues, are legitimate.  I can understand the frustrations of the students – the slow pace of transformation, social integration, and often the lack of urgency in executing agreed decisions within the higher-education sector.  However, I am questioning the type of reaction or action exhibited by the students if, for similar legitimate reasons (through proper engagements), student demands cannot be completely met by university leaders.

In the final analysis, South Africa needs strong universities which are competitive – the country needs appropriate skills to enable and support the economy.  Also, universities need to listen to the student voice – deal with their concerns in a fair and socially-just manner; but as a sector with all its stakeholders, we need to ultimately respect the academic project and the infrastructure (physical and human) which support it.  We cannot afford party-political dynamics to ‘abuse’ the university campus in a way that can destroy the fibre of our higher-education system.  This will be catastrophic for South Africa, and I believe for the continent.

I call on government, voices in society, fellow students, student leadership, and staff to support university management openly, pro-actively and firmly, so that our universities remain places of intellectual engagement and discovery, places where different views are respected and heard, and by ‘jealously guarding’ the institutions as ‘country resources’, responding to all stakeholders’ concerns in a fair and just manner.

It is only then that universities ‘regain’ their rightful place in society, educating the next generation of scholars and professionals, advancing new knowledge, and purposefully disseminate and apply these to society – contributing to ‘lubricating the economy’ and to the betterment of the quality of life of our people! 




News Archive

Inaugural lecture: Prof. Phillipe Burger
2007-11-26

 

Attending the lecture were, from the left: Prof. Tienie Crous (Dean of the Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences at the UFS), Prof. Phillipe Burger (Departmental Chairperson of the Department of Economics at the UFS), and Prof. Frederick Fourie (Rector and Vice-Chancellor of the UFS).
Photo: Stephen Collet

 
A summary of an inaugural lecture presented by Prof. Phillipe Burger on the topic: “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

South African business cycle shows reduction in volatility

Better monetary policy and improvements in the financial sector that place less liquidity constraints on individuals is one of the main reasons for the reduction in the volatility of the South African economy. The improvement in access to the financial sector also enables individuals to manage their debt better.

These are some of the findings in an analysis on the volatility of the South African business cycle done by Prof. Philippe Burger, Departmental Chairperson of the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Department of Economics.

Prof. Burger delivered his inaugural lecture last night (22 November 2007) on the Main Campus in Bloemfontein on the topic “The ups and downs of the South African Economy: Rough seas or smooth sailing?”

In his lecture, Prof. Burger emphasised a few key aspects of the South African business cycle and indicated how it changed during the periods 1960-1976, 1976-1994 en 1994-2006.

With the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as an indicator of the business cycle, the analysis identified the variables that showed the highest correlation with the GDP. During the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006, these included durable consumption, manufacturing investment, private sector investment, as well as investment in machinery and non-residential buildings. Other variables that also show a high correlation with the GDP are imports, non-durable consumption, investment in the financial services sector, investment by general government, as well as investment in residential buildings.

Prof. Burger’s analysis also shows that changes in durable consumption, investment in the manufacturing sector, investment in the private sector, as well as investment in non-residential buildings preceded changes in the GDP. If changes in a variable such as durable consumption precede changes in the GDP, it is an indication that durable consumption is one of the drivers of the business cycle. The up or down swing of durable consumption may, in other words, just as well contribute to an up or down swing in the business cycle.

A surprising finding of the analysis is the particularly strong role durable consumption has played in the business cycle since 1994. This finding is especially surprising due to the fact that durable consumption only constitutes about 12% of the total household consumption.

A further surprising finding is the particularly small role exports have been playing since 1960 as a driver of the business cycle. In South Africa it is still generally accepted that exports are one of the most important drivers of the business cycle. It is generally accepted that, should the business cycles of South Africa’s most important trade partners show an upward phase; these partners will purchase more from South Africa. This increase in exports will contribute to the South African economy moving upward. Prof. Burger’s analyses shows, however, that exports have generally never fulfil this role.

Over and above the identification of the drivers of the South African business cycle, Prof. Burger’s analysis also investigated the volatility of the business cycle.

When the periods 1976-1994 and 1994-2006 are compared, the analysis shows that the volatility of the business cycle has reduced since 1994 with more than half. The reduction in volatility can be traced to the reduction in the volatility of household consumption (especially durables and services), as well as a reduction in the volatility of investment in machinery, non-residential buildings and transport equipment. The last three coincide with the general reduction in the volatility of investment in the manufacturing sector. Investment in sectors such as electricity and transport (not to be confused with investment in transport equipment by various sectors) which are strongly dominated by the government, did not contribute to the decrease in volatility.

In his analysis, Prof. Burger supplies reasons for the reduction in volatility. One of the explanations is the reduction in the shocks affecting the economy – especially in the South African context. Another explanation is the application of an improved monetary policy by the South African Reserve Bank since the mid 1990’s. A third explanation is the better access to liquidity and credit since the mid 1990’s, which enables the better management of household finance and the absorption of financial shocks.

A further reason which contributed to the reduction in volatility in countries such as the United States of America’s business cycle is better inventory management. While the volatility of inventory in South Africa has also reduced there is, according to Prof. Burger, little proof that better inventory management contributed to the reduction in volatility of the GDP.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept