Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
29 June 2020 | Story Edward Kagiso Molefe and Dr Nico Keyser
Edward Kagiso Molefe, left, and Dr Nico Keyser.

The 2020 supplementary budget comes at a time when the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic is causing widespread disruption in the world’s economy and continues to affect it negatively. Even though the precise economic and social consequences of the pandemic still remain uncertain, there is prevalent agreement between economists and policy makers that it will leave the world overwrought with the uncertainties of the future. According to the International Monetary Fund, the world economy is expected to contract sharply by 5,2% this year, due to the huge lockdown to curtail the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic. The South African economy is also expected to contract by 7,2% in 2020, and according to the Minister of Finance, Tito Mboweni, this is the largest contraction in almost 90 years. Therefore, the South African government currently finds itself in an unfortunate and restricted fiscal position. Minister Mboweni does not have much room to move within his emergency budget and therefore calls for a pragmatic approach, the reprioritisation of expenditure, and the implementation of austerity measures within the public sector and its state-owned enterprises (SOE).

Zero-based budgeting
However, the country should be applauded for responding to this economic shock with a set of unmatched measures. The Minister further highlighted that, for the first time in history, all stakeholders – including the private sector, labour, communities, and the central bank – participated in responding to the storm that came without an early warning system. This has proven the validity of the long-sung gospel that by working together, we can do more. R500 billion of government’s COVID‐19 economic support package was directed straight at the problem. Against the background of ongoing measures to address the pandemic in South Africa, the Minister’s supplementary budget of 2020 stressed several key aspects:

The first burning issue addressed in the supplementary budget was the mounting debt-to-GDP ratio, which is envisaged to reach 80,5% in this fiscal year, as compared to a projection of 65,6% in February. Although the Minister has confirmed strategies to curtail the debt and widening deficit, no sign of stabilisation was presented. South Africa continues to experience contracting revenue and is relying extensively on loans from international sources, since savings is a non-starter. The Minister has also called for zero-based budgeting as one of the strategies in building a bridge to recover, and to close the mouth of the ‘hippopotamus’, which is eating our children’s inheritance. The zero-based budgeting is a big step in the right direction; it will make all role players in government understand the economic crisis we are facing. 

Prioritising infrastructure development
The other positive part of the supplementary budget was the prioritisation of infrastructure development. The South African government has already considered almost 177 infrastructure projects that will assist in boosting the economy and curtailing unemployment. The Sustainable Infrastructure Symposium, hosted by President Cyril Ramaphosa, announced 55 projects that are ready to be rolled out in due course. Government needs to further stimulate its partnership with the private sector to ensure more infrastructure development and job creation. Infrastructure development will also ensure jobs for the unskilled labour force, which makes up the largest part of our unemployment. 
In terms of job creation, an economic support package of R100 billion has been set aside for a multi-year, comprehensive response to our job emergency. Moreover, the President’s job creation and protection initiative will be rolled out over the medium term. This will include a repurposed public employment programme and a Presidential Youth Employment Intervention. The country is looking forward to further details regarding this presidential initiative, particularly with regard to the Presidential Youth Employment Intervention, as the youth is the future of this country.
Despite the envisaged revenue adjustment of R1,43 trillion to R1,12 trillion, the country is expected to continue spending. An additional R21 billion is allocated for COVID‐19‐related health-care spending. The supplementary budget has also proposed a R12,6 billion allocation to front-line services. An additional R11 billion is set aside towards improved water and sanitation, and an additional R6,1 billion for youth employment ensures that the most vulnerable are supported. However, the effectiveness of this allocation in the supplementary budget is sorely dependent on the ability of our government apparatus to spend the money.   

Opening the economy
The only worrying issue that the minister did not dwell on much, was the public sector wage bill, which still remains a challenge. According to the Minister, nearly half of the consolidated revenue will go towards the compensation of public service employees. The compensation of employees continues to put much pressure on service delivery and is pushing government in the direction of borrowing. On the other hand, the government of South Africa is still under pressure to implement the 2020 salary adjustments. However, the question still remains why the South African government is not considering the same process as the private sector or finding an alternative way of setting salaries at an appropriate, affordable, and fair level. This could save government money to focus on other areas that require financing, such as debt-service costs.

What remains evident and feasible is that South Africa should continue opening the economy to revive sectors hit hard by the great lockdown. Allowing trade to take place, doing business, and markets to function would provide the ultimate boost to a struggling economy. A reduced role by government could pave the way for the private sector to play a larger role in the economy. Moreover, structural reforms are required to create a favourable environment for growth and to restore South African fiscal credibility. 

Opinion article by Edward Kagiso Molefe, Lecturer: Department of Economics and Finance, and Dr Nico Keyser, Head of Department:  Economics and Finance

News Archive

UFS study shows playing time in Super Rugby matches decreasing
2016-12-19

Description: Super Rugby playing time Tags: Super Rugby playing time 

The study by Riaan Schoeman, (left), Prof Robert Schall,
and Prof Derik Coetzee from the University of the Free State
on variables in Super Rugby can provide coaches with
insight on how to approach the game.
Photo: Anja Aucamp

It is better for Super Rugby teams not to have the ball, which also leads to reduced overall playing time in matches.

This observation is from a study by the University of the Free State on the difference between winning and losing teams. Statistics between 2011 and 2015 show that Super Rugby winning teams kick more and their defence is better.

These statistics were applied by Riaan Schoeman, lecturer in Exercise and Sport Sciences, Prof Derik Coetzee, Head of Department: Exercise and Sport Sciences, and Prof Robert Schall, Department of Mathematics and Actuarial Sciences. The purpose of the study, Changes in match variables for winning and losing teams in Super Rugby from 2011 to 2015, was to observe changes. Data on 30 games (four from each team) per season, supplied by the Cheetahs via Verusco TryMaker Pro, were used.

About two minutes less action
“We found that the playing time has decreased. This is the time the ball is in play during 80 minutes,” says Schoeman. In 2011, the average playing time was 34.12 minutes and in 2015 it was 31.95.

“The winning team has less possession of the ball and doesn’t want it. They play more conservatively. They dominate with kicks and then they play,” says Prof Coetzee, who was the conditioning coach for the Springboks in 2007 when they won the World Cup.

Lineouts also more about kicking
As a result, the number of line-outs also increased (from 0.31 per minute in 2011 to 0.34 in 2015) and the winning teams are better in this regard.

“The winning team has less possession of the ball
and doesn’t want it. They play a more conservative
game. They dominate with kicks and then they play.”

Schoeman believes that rule changes could also have contributed to reduced playing time, since something like scrum work nowadays causes more problems. “When a scrum falls, the time thereafter is not playing time.”

According to Prof Coetzee, rucks and mauls have also increased, (rucks from 2.08 per minute in 2011 to 2.16 in 2015 and mauls from 0.07 per minute in 2011 to 0.10 in 2015). “The teams that win, dominate these areas,” he says.

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