Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
11 March 2022 | Story Prof Frikkie Maré | Photo Supplied
Prof Frikkie Maré is from the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of the Free State (UFS)

Opinion article by Prof Frikkie Maré, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of the Free State.
In William Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar, Mark Antony utters the words: “Cry ‘Havoc!’, and let slip the dogs of war,” after learning about the murder of Julius Caesar. With these words he meant that chaos would ensue (havoc) to create the opportunity for violence (let slip the dogs of war).

The recent invasion (or military operation, according to Russian President Vladimir Putin) by Russian armed forces into Ukraine brought the famous words of Shakespeare to mind. Putin cried “Havoc!” and his troops created chaos in Ukraine. This is, however, not where it stopped because the dogs of war have been released into the rest of the world.

What is the impact on South Africa?

The day after the invasion we felt the bite of the dogs of war in South Africa. The rand suddenly weakened against the dollar, oil and gold prices increased sharply, and grain and oilseed prices on commodity markets increased 

This was before the rest of the world started to implement sanctions against Russia, which could be described as a shock reaction due to uncertainty as to how the situation would unfold. In the days after the initial market reaction we saw the markets actually “cool down” a bit, with most sharp initial reactions starting to change back to former positions. This period was, however, short-lived when the world hit back by closing airspace and borders and refusing to import products from Russia or export to them. The sanctions were in solidarity with Ukraine as an attempt to bring the Russian economy to its knees and force the Russians to withdraw from Ukraine.

Although the sanctions against Russia should certainly be successful over the long term, it does not change much in the short term and we will have to deal with the international effects of this conflict. The question then is, how will this affect South Africa?

Although there are no straightforward answers, as the impact will depend on what one’s role is in the economy. One thing for certain is that the total cost will outnumber the benefits. What affects everyone in South Africa, and the starting point of many secondary effects, is the increase in the price of crude oil. Russia is the second-largest producer of crude oil in the world and if the West is going to ban the import of Russian oil we will have an international shortage. Although the banning of Russian oil is the right thing to do to support Ukraine, it will have devastating effects on all countries in the world, with sharp increases in inflation.  

The increase in the price of oil not only drives up the cost of transportation of people and products, but also manufacturing costs. Fertiliser prices are correlated with the oil price, and it will thus drive up the production cost of grain and oilseeds.

Speaking of grain and oilseed prices, the Black Sea region (which includes Russia and Ukraine), are major exporters of wheat and sunflower seed and oil. The prices of these commodities have soared in international and South Africa markets over the past few weeks. Although it might seem like good news for our farmers, the increase in prices are offset by high fertiliser prices and the local shortage of fertiliser. This may lead to fewer hectares of wheat being planted this year in the winter rainfall regions.  

Nothing good is coming from this situation

In terms of agricultural commodities, both Russia and Ukraine are important importers of South African products, especially citrus, stone fruit and grapes.  Alternative markets now need to be found for these products which will affect prices negatively.

Although one needs to write a thesis to explain all the effects of the Russian-Ukraine conflict, the dogs of war have been slipped, and it is clear from the few examples that nothing good is coming from this situation. In short, we will see higher fuel prices (maybe not R40/litre, but R25 to R30/litre is possible), higher food prices, higher inflation and a higher interest rate.  

These factors affect all South-Africans, especially the poor and some in the middle class who will struggle in the short term. The time has come to cut down on luxuries and tighten belts to survive in the short term until there is certainty about how the havoc in Ukraine will play out.

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