Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
20 February 2025 Photo Supplied
Prof Johan Coetzee
Prof Johan Coetzee, Chairperson: Department of Economics and Finance, University of the Free State.

Opinion article by Prof Johan Coetzee (MCBI, CMBE), Chairperson: Department of Economics and Finance, University of the Free State.

The Minister of Finance has not had it easy in 2025 and the budget speech not read yesterday pays testament to this. Postponing the speech to 12 March is unprecedented, and is due to the Government of National Unity (GNU) not reaching consensus on a way forward to tabling a budget. It seems as if the fallout was based largely on a proposed 2% increase to VAT that was rejected by two parties. I personally would not have supported this proposal either as the tax burden shifts disproportionally to the poor.

My initial response of the postponement was frustration and disappointment. But I soon realised that it is the outcome of a new government dispensation made up of many voices, and many dissenting at that, becoming more important. In principle, this is good for the nation, but unfortunate for us expecting the budget to be read on the day. It also does not necessarily send a good message to the markets, with the rand weakening by more than 1% within an hour of the announcement. There could also be knock-on effects that a later tabling will have on service delivery and operations of government. After some reflection, however, I have concluded that on balance, the decision to postpone is not as problematic as many have made it out to be over the past 24 hours. Clearly there are many balls to juggle by Minister Enoch Godongwana and many added complexities that have both national and international dimensions.

Lead-up to the budget

Internationally the strong nationalist policy drive by US President Donald Trump has already shown that the ‘make America great again’ mantra is alive and well as reflected in the intentional actions taken against South Africa since his second term started in January. We will see how this plays out over the coming months, but my view is that South Africa as a nation needs to be more deliberate in its policy agenda. We are at an inflection point where we must reflect on who we are as a nation and where we want to be down the line. We cannot afford to rely on handouts from other nations. There is more opportunity to this situation than threat, but we need intentional leadership to exploit it.

My big concern in the lead-up to the budget speech was that the minister would not take a firm stand on fighting the culture of non-compliance within state entities which has invariably led to unsustainable levels of irregular expenditure. For the 2023/24 financial year, the Auditor-General of South Africa reported that irregular expenditure totalled almost R50 billion, up from just over R27 billion the previous year. To put this into perspective, irregular expenditure equals approximately 2.2% of total government spending for the 2023/24 fiscal year. This might not seem significant stated as a percentage, but it has basically doubled since the previous year, and every preceding year before that too. Moreover, irregular expenditure equates to approximately 20% of the 2023/24 social grants budget and just about equals the 2024 National Student Financial Aid Scheme allocation. This is clearly a management failure and nothing seems to have been done about it over the years. As a result, the problem is escalating at an alarming rate. It is quite astounding that accountability management is not more explicit as it is clearly a very unpopular political message to send. But at what cost?

South African economy is not growing

To make matters worse, the South African economy is not growing both enough and fast enough. The most recent real GDP growth figure showed a decrease of 0.3% in the third quarter from the second quarter of 2024. Since 1994, the period with the highest annual rate of growth was a three-year period from 2005 to 2007 where growth exceeded 5% for each respective year. This period preceded the global financial crisis and since then, growth has struggled to reach 3% annually, doing so on only two occasions barring the 4.7% in 2021 which was not a true reflection of reality given the low base of the preceding year amid the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a major concern for the Minister, because with economic growth comes increased tax revenues, which in turn capacitates better budget management. Very simply, the more people spend; the more businesses sell; the larger the profit outcomes; the larger the tax revenue collections. If the economy grows, the fiscus collects more tax revenues without explicitly increasing tax rates. This built-in cyclical dynamic is simply not happening and creates a serious constraint on the ability of the Minister to manage deficits going forward.

Further to this of course is that as deficits are run, all things remaining constant, public debt increases. The public-debt-to-GDP ratio for 2023/24 already exceeds 72% which is higher than the generally accepted benchmark of 60% and almost 2.6 times what it was in 2008 (27.8%). This has resulted in the average interest on public debt approximating R1.1 billion a day, equating to about 22% of total tax revenues, or almost 20% of total government spending respectively. To put it differently, for every R1 government spends, 20 cents is first channelled to pay the interest on the debt before any spending occurs on roads, education, infrastructure, social grants and the like. These are deeply concerning figures in an economy with already high levels of unemployment and inequality.

Might be beginning of something better

There is a leadership void that cannot be ignored anymore. It needs to be intentional and deliberate. The GNU provides the platform to exploit ‘the best that South Africa has to offer’ as it promotes a broad-based and more inclusive political structure and played itself out yesterday. I welcome this in principle, but my concern is that political in-fighting will prevail and perverse politicking will trump working together in the best interests of the South African people. Although the postponement could be interpreted negatively in terms of the GNU not being able to find common ground, I think it is rather a sign of more rigorous engagement and the enablement of a collaborative environment amongst parties in the decision-making structures of the state. Remember this day as it might be the beginning of something better than what we are used to. 

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