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

The failure of the law
2004-06-04

 

Written by Lacea Loader

- Call for the protection of consumers’ and tax payers rights against corporate companies

An expert in commercial law has called for reforms to the Companies Act to protect the rights of consumers and investors.

“Consumers and tax payers are lulled into thinking the law protects them when it definitely does not,” said Prof Dines Gihwala this week during his inaugural lecture at the University of the Free State’s (UFS).

Prof Gihwala, vice-chairperson of the UFS Council, was inaugurated as extraordinary professor in commercial law at the UFS’s Faculty of Law.

He said that consumers, tax payers and shareholders think they can look to the law for an effective curb on the enormous power for ill that big business wields.

“Once the public is involved, the activities of big business must be controlled and regulated. It is the responsibility of the law to oversee and supervise such control and regulation,” said Prof Gihwala.

He said that, when undesirable consequences occur despite laws enacted specifically to prevent such results, it must be fair to suggest that the law has failed.

“The actual perpetrators of the undesirable behaviour seldom pay for it in any sense, not even when criminal conduct is involved. If directors of companies are criminally charged and convicted, the penalty is invariably a fine imposed on the company. So, ironically, it is the money of tax payers that is spent on investigating criminal conduct, formulating charges and ultimately prosecuting the culprits involved in corporate malpractice,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala the law continuously fails to hold companies meaningfully accountable to good and honest business values.

“Insider trading is a crime and, although legislation was introduced in 1998 to curb it, not a single successful criminal prosecution has taken place. While the law appears to be offering the public protection against unacceptable business behaviour, it does no such thing – the law cannot act as a deterrent if it is inadequate or not being enforced,” he said.

The government believed it was important to facilitate access to the country’s economic resources by those who had been denied it in the past. The Broad Based Economic Empowerment Act of 2003 (BBEE), is legislation to do just that. “We should be asking ourselves whether it is really possible for an individual, handicapped by the inequities of the past, to compete in the real business world even though the BBEE Act is now part of the law?,” said Prof Gihwala.

Prof Gihwala said that judges prefer to follow precedent instead of taking bold initiative. “Following precedent is safe at a personal level. To do so will elicit no outcry of disapproval and one’s professional reputation is protected. The law needs to evolve and it is the responsibility of the judiciary to see that it happens in an orderly fashion. Courts often take the easy way out, and when the opportunity to be bold and creative presents itself, it is ignored,” he said.

“Perhaps we are expecting too much from the courts. If changes are to be made to the level of protection to the investing public by the law, Parliament must play its proper role. It is desirable for Parliament to be proactive. Those tasked with the responsibility of rewriting our Companies Act should be bold and imaginative. They should remove once and for all those parts of our common law which frustrate the ideals of our Constitution, and in particular those which conflict with the principles of the BBEE Act,” said Prof Gihwala.

According to Prof Gihwala, the following reforms are necessary:

• establishing a unit that is part of the office of the Registrar of Companies to bolster a whole inspectorate in regard to companies’ affairs;
• companies who are liable to pay a fine or fines, should have the right to take action to recover that fine from those responsible for the conduct;
• and serious transgression of the law should allow for imprisonment only – there should be no room for the payment of fines.
 

Prof Gihwala ended the lecture by saying: “If the opportunity to re-work the Companies Act is not grabbed with both hands, we will witness yet another failure in the law. Even more people will come to believe that the law is stupid and that it has made fools of them. And that would be the worst possible news in our developing democracy, where we are struggling to ensure that the Rule of Law prevails and that every one of us has respect for the law”.

 

 

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