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

Important message to UFS students on NSFAS and financial aid in general
2013-02-01

31 January 2013

Dear Students

There remains some uncertainty as well as misinformation within the student body concerning NSFAS and financial aid in general. This communication is intended to provide the facts on the state of student funding at the University of the Free State (UFS). I hope you find this information helpful and that it would guide you in your decisions as you wait to hear from, or hopefully receive funding from NSFAS or any other source.

  1. Every year the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) determines how much funding is available to fund students at all universities in South Africa; this is determined in part by the student numbers. Universities do not ask for, or determine the DHET allocation and are instructed by government that “NSFAS will ensure that the universities comply with the processes, procedures…for the allocated funds.”

  2. On 14 December 2012 the UFS received notice from the DHET that our total allocation would be R108,331,215.66 and that this amount must be apportioned in the following categories:
    General NSFAS Funding R85,174,275.07
    Teacher Training R2,291,940.59
    Disability Funding R1,265,000.00
    Final-Year Programme R19,600,000.00

  3. The UFS received 5 952 applications for NSFAS funding and with the available funding we can only finance up to 3 000 students on the Qwaqwa and Bloemfontein Campuses, provided that those students satisfy the stringent criteria, e.g. the so-called “national means test” determined for all universities in the country. If we funded more students that the available monies allow, the university would be held accountable by the NSFAS Board and the DHET and this would threaten future funding.

  4. Students apply in the previous year and therefore late applications are less likely to receive funding.

  5. Academic merit also counts, therefore students who fail one or more modules are less likely to receive new or ongoing support from NSFAS. The combination of academic standing and financial need are among the important criteria in decision-making on NSFAS funds.

  6. The UFS is one of the few universities with a very efficient record in using every cent made available to support poor students; we are proud of this record. No money is sent back to NSFAS, except small amounts not claimed by students in the disability category. The university is not allowed to shift funds between categories as described in point #2 above.

  7. Allocations are not based on campus, but need.

  8. The UFS sets aside an additional R35,7 million (in 2013) from within its own budget as bursaries so that we can accommodate as many students as possible. We spend every cent of this funding on students.

  9. The UFS also raises millions in bursaries from the private sector to support poor and promising students, though these funds are often linked to the industry granting the money, e.g. Investec for Accounting students and SASOL for Chemistry students. This recruitment of bursaries is a 24/7 commitment of the Marketing Office and the Faculties and Heads of Departments are also active in raising funds from government agencies, parastatals and the private sector for students in their units.

  10. After almost all our 2013 funds were allocated in favour of students, we calculated a shortfall in the NSFAS allocation of approximately R51 million. We are in the process of making an urgent submission to NSFAS to consider this additional allocation, but we cannot guarantee that this plea can or will be met.

Finally, I want all our students to know that the University of the Free State works very hard to raise every cent we can to provide poor students with funding for their studies. Many of my colleagues, including support staff, who do not earn very much, use some of their meagre personal resources to help a student with money for registration or clothing or food. In fact, the No Student Hungry Campaign that raises more than R600,000 by UFS volunteers annually, is another mechanism for trying to assist students who might have money for studies, but not much else.

We do this because we care, and because this is what The Human Project at Kovsies is all about.

I therefore ask for your patience as we continue our labour of raising the funds that enable every deserving student to continue their studies at the University of the Free State.

Should you have any further questions about NSFAS, please leave an email inquiry on choanet@ufs.ac.za or mallettca@ufs.ac.za and we will endeavour to provide you with the information you require.

Sincerely Yours

Jonathan D Jansen
Vice-Chancellor and Rector
University of the Free State

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