Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Categories
UFS News Media Release Research
Years
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Months
January February March April May June July August September October November December
Previous Archive
08 October 2020 | Story Motsaathebe Serekoane | Photo Supplied

We need to acknowledge that inherent in opening up spaces that were previously reserved for exclusive inhabitation and use is problematic in the contestation for place and symbolic public representation. Broadening the heritage landscape allows us an opportunity to bridge the existing gaps in the heritage space, in particular, askew representation through monuments and declared sites.

The country’s 2030 Developmental Plan requires South Africa to continuously reflect on progress made since the dawn of democracy in 1994. The scope is big; my focus here is on the heritage landscape. I do not want to create an impression that this matter exists in isolation, the intersectional engagement is imminent. The conversation on heritage is vast. My summary of all I have read and heard is that at stake in South Africa, with the historical legacy of segregation policies, is the competing notion of space, conflicting and often-competing ideological notion of commemoration or memorialisation, and the lack of shared collective memory and meaning of public representation. Effectively we don’t know what to do with our historical text and footprints. 

“A community is divided when their perception of the same thing is divided” …Steve Biko

Three questions 

This is a challenge for the notion of inclusion (aka social cohesion) and a threat to preservation and conservation of the country’s heritage resources material. It is equally important that I bring to your attention related conversations with a position that asserts that forfeiting the past for the sake of the future is perhaps an overly simplistic way of conceptualising and describing how society moves beyond conflict or pain. The argument for imagining inclusive spaces necessitates a paradigm shift in our thinking. The literature argues for a move from multiculturalism to interculturalism because of cross-cultural overlaps, interaction, and negotiation. The interculturalism approach goes beyond opportunities and respect for existing cultural differences, to the pluralist transformation of public space, civic culture, and institutions. In line with this view, reconfiguration of public spaces towards inclusive ends would have to emphasise the politics of recognition and negotiation of difference. So where does this leave us? There are no easy answers. As the country embarks on the process of auditing and spatial identity transformation I put forward the following three questions:
• Whose conception of the past should prevail in the public realm?
• Whose conception of the present should prevail in the current realm for the future?
• How do we balance the old and the new so that we do not dump history?

Sustainable change will require consultation and participation

Advancing change affords interested and affected communities to develop an awareness of layered complexities of our history and intersectional voices (some louder than others), and promotes the practices of collaboration and capacity-building with community members to advance sustainable change. Sustainable change will require, in line with the democratic principles, that the review process acknowledges consultation and participation. Ideally, the audit and review process should be designed to encourage conversation, reflection, and social analysis. The transformation of spatial social milieu should assume collective ownership and management of space founded on the permanent and temporary participation of the 'interested and affected parties', with their multiple, varied, and even contradictory political interests. In the review of the current symbolic landscape for inclusion, the spatial identity transformation must be negotiated. It must be developed from a focal point that understands the interrelationship between space and spatial inscription through the form of street names, symbols, and public art. 

I can’t pre-empt the end of the process, the process should inform the outcome. Should it be that some of the statues are to be “repositioned and relocated”, as also stated in the president's speech, this should not be equated to dumping history/historical dumping. Reposition and relocation are plausible alternative arguments in the spatial reconfiguration discourse. If it is done well it should contribute to the educational programme of the country. It should also be kept in mind that memorabilia are protected by the National Heritage Resources Act (NHRA) No 25 1999. Subsequently, the audit and review will require a nuanced approach guided by the NHRA (including relevant legislation) and leaning towards a process-oriented, person-based approach to allow for agency/agility and new possibilities (cf. SONA pronouncement of imagining the New City). Imminent is a guiding or reference document that draws lessons from review processes demonstrated by, among others, the University of Free State’s review and ultimately relocation of the president MT Steyn statue to the War Museum. I believe the South African Heritage Resources Authority and its Provincial Heritage Resources Authority should guide the process. 

Heritage serves a social and economic function

Just as a footnote, it is prudent that we remind ourselves that heritage, in addition to many things, serves a social and economic function. Although I acknowledge the views that some of the symbols in the public spaces trigger painful memories of the past, losing those will rob the country of its rich narrative that, in line with NHRA, is to be bequeathed to the next generation, but also that can boost the country’s economy through heritage cultural tourism footprints. 

Ultimately, “Our heritage is unique and precious and it cannot be renewed. It helps us to define our cultural identity and therefore lies at the heart of our spiritual well-being and has the power to build our nation. It has the potential to affirm our diverse cultures and in so doing, shape our national character” …NHRA, No. 25 1999

Opinion article by Motsaathebe Serekoane, Lecturer: Anthropology at the UFS.


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