Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
07 April 2025 Photo Supplied
Dr Calvin Mudzingiri
Dr Calvin Mudzingiri, Assistant Dean: Faculty of Economic and Management Sciences, University of the Free State, Qwaqwa Campus.

Opinion article by Dr Calvin Mudzingiri, Assistant Dean: Economic and Management Sciences, University of the Free State, Qwaqwa Campus 


The sudden hike of import tariffs by US President Donald Trump and his administration to countries across the world is set to reduce the volume of goods traded and affect citizen welfare across the globe. The Trump administration implemented a global 10% import tariff and a varying targeted reciprocal tariff to a host of countries, including South Africa. The reciprocal import tariff to be levied on South African export goods to the US is set at 30%. Historical data show that yearly trade between SA and US amounts to $23 billion and the US is SA’s the second biggest trading partner after China. The high tariff will reduce the competitiveness of South African export goods to American markets, leading to reduced demand of SA exports in US markets, low income to firms, job losses, low income to households and ultimately lower South African economic growth.

 

SA and US trade

South Africa exports platinum, locally assembled cars, raw aluminium, ferroalloys and agriculture products, among other goods, to the US. The implication of the US administration’s 30% tariff hike could result in job losses in the mining, automobile, agriculture and many other industries. More income losses to SA agricultural exports can also be experienced if the African Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA) expires in September 2025, if the US congressmen decide not to renew the agreement. Given the low economic growth rate in South Africa in 2024, which is estimated at 0.6%, the tariff hike by the US will exacerbate sluggish economic growth and recovery from the COVID 19 pandemic. 

Statistics also show that SA imports energy products, machinery, vehicle, industrial and other consumer goods. The goods and services SA imports from the US play a critical role in developing and sustaining local industry. SA can decide to source the goods from other markets and if this happens with all economies where tariffs were imposed, the US will be worse off. There is a possibility that economies which received a tariff hike from the US will implement a reciprocal tariff hike to the US reducing the volume of global trade. The reduced trade volumes have dire implications for job creation, income generation by firms and households, making citizens worse off.


US current trade policy

It is important to note that President Trump administration’s trade policies are premised on a trade notion synonymous to ‘mercantilism’, which was practised in Europe between the 16th to 18th centuries. Under mercantilism, an economy aims to maintain a trade surplus, the government regulate the economy, discourage imports (in the case of the US using tariff hikes) and promote growth of home industries among other initiatives. Conventional economics wisdom has proved that policies pursued by the Trump administration of protectionism are a breeding ground for trade wars. There is great potential of fellow trading partners retaliating and if that happens, global citizens will be made worse off as they will be forced to pay high prices for goods due to additional costs driven by tariff hikes. In addition, US industry relies on raw materials from other countries. If the suppliers of raw material resources retaliate, the production cost model of US firms will rise, reducing export competitiveness of US exports.

Trump’s administration is calling for firms across the world to move and produce goods in the US to avoid tariff levies. The action works against the benefits of free trade and can affect firms’ comparative advantages. The production cost structure in the US can be higher than in other countries leading to firms realising low profits if they move to the US. It is essential to note that free trade with absolutely no trade barriers will enhance the welfare of citizens at large, since goods and services will be purchased at low prices. The US government’s act of over-regulating trade can limit economic growth not only of other countries but even that of the US economy.

 

Options for the SA government

In the face of trade adversity, the SA government must not fold its hands and do nothing. It is enlightening to note that the authorities have already initiated diplomatic and trade negotiations. Negotiations can possibly focus on tariff reduction, maintaining the AGOA, and delving deep in the logic used to arrive at the 30% tariff hike. The diplomatic initiatives must encompass improving perceptions and clarity of SA policies such as the Expropriation Act which is one of the reasons cited by the US administration in ratcheting the tariff trade war.

South Africa must re-orient its trading patterns and partnerships. The aggregate world gross domestic product (GDP) is greater than the US total production for goods and services. There is need for SA to improve trade relations with other economies to broaden its trade base. The current frosty trade relationship between SA and the US presents a window to strengthen trade with the EU, Asia, BRICS plus, Africa, and any other economy willing to get into trade partnerships. SA must explore other markets where the export goods still enjoy competitiveness.

To ensure economic resilience to trade wars in the long run, SA needs to seriously invest in research and development that promote value addition of local production, enhancing local production and technology advancement that can stimulate economies of scale, which can boost competitiveness of export goods. Competitiveness can be further enhanced by improving energy production efficiency, which is a crucial input of goods and services production. Developing a powerful and skilled human capital base can lead to labour productivity efficiency, further enhancing competitiveness. SA has a dilapidated infrastructure ranging from roads, rail, buildings and industry among others. Improving the infrastructure will go a long way in improving local production, leading to creation of jobs and improved incomes for households.

Boosting local economic activity can stimulate local consumption of goods as household income improves. If the incomes of SA citizens improve, there is a potential to increase local consumption. Goods meant for export markets can end up being consumed in the domestic markets, providing a homemade solution to dwindling export goods markets. The SA government must consider developing and supporting new industries that can compete in the local and international markets. In this way, the trade challenges posed by unfriendly US administration trade policies can present opportunities to the SA economy in the long run.

News Archive

To tan or not to tan: a burning issue
2009-12-08

 Prof. Werner Sinclair

“Some evidence exists which implies that sunscreens could indeed be responsible for the dramatic rise in the incidence of melanoma over the past three decades, the period during which the use of sunscreens became very popular,” says Prof. Werner Sinclair, Head of the Department of Dermatology at the University of the Free State. His inaugural lecture was on the topic Sunscreens – Curse or Blessing?

Prof. Sinclair says the use of sunscreen preparations is widely advocated as a measure to prevent acute sunburn, chronic sun damage and resultant premature skin aging as well as skin malignancies, including malignant melanoma. There is inconclusive evidence to prove that these preparations do indeed achieve all of these claims. The question is whether these preparations are doing more harm than good?

He says the incidence of skin cancer is rising dramatically and these tumours are induced mostly by the ultra-violet rays.

Of the UV light that reaches the earth 90-95% belongs to the UVA fraction. UVC is normally filtered out by the ozone layer. UVB leads to sunburn while UVA leads to pigmentation (tanning). Because frequent sunburn was often associated with skin cancer, UVB was assumed, naively, to be the culprit, he says.

Exposure to sunlight induces a sense of well-being, increases the libido, reduces appetite and induces the synthesis of large amounts of vitamin D, an essential nutritional factor. The use of sunscreen creams reduces vitamin D levels and low levels of vitamin D have been associated with breast and colon cancer. Prof. Sinclair says the 17% increase in breast cancer from 1981 to 1991 parallels the vigorous use of sunscreens over the same period.

Among the risk factors for the development of tumours are a family history, tendency to freckle, more than three episodes of severe sunburn during childhood, and the use of artificial UV light tanning booths. He says it remains a question whether to tan or not. It was earlier believed that the main carcinogenic rays were UVB and that UVA merely induced a tan. The increase in UVA exposure could have severe consequences.

Prof. Sinclair says the UV light used in artificial tanning booths consists mainly of pure UVA which are highly dangerous rays. It has been estimated that six per cent of all melanoma deaths in the UK can be directly attributed to the use of artificial tanning lights. The use of an artificial tanning booth will double the melanoma risk of a person. “UVA is solely responsible for solar skin aging and it is ironical that tanning addicts, who want to look beautiful, are inflicting accelerated ageing in the process,” he says.

On the use of sunscreens he says it can prevent painful sunburn, but UVA-induced damage continues unnoticed. UVB blockers decrease vitamin D synthesis, which is a particular problem in the elderly. It also prevents the sunburn warning and therefore increases the UVA dosage that an individual receives. It creates a false sense of security which is the biggest problem associated with sunscreens.

Evidence obtained from the state of Queensland in Australia, where the heaviest and longest use of sunscreens occurred, boasted the highest incidence of melanoma in the world. A huge study in Norway has shown a 350% increase in melanoma for men and 440% for women. This paralleled the increase in the use of UVB blocking sunscreens while there was no change in the ozone layer. It did however, occur during that time when tanning became fashionable in Norway and there was an increase especially in artificial tanning.

Prof. Sinclair says: “We believe that sunscreen use does not directly lead to melanoma, but UVA exposure does. The Melanoma Epidemic is a reality. Sunscreen preparations are not the magical answer in the fight against melanoma and the irresponsible use of these preparations can worsen the problem.”

Media Release
Issued by: Mangaliso Radebe
Assistant Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2828
Cell: 078 460 3320
E-mail: radebemt.stg@ufs.ac.za
7 December 2009

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