Sometimes I wish I knew what inclusive growth in the context of SA means. To survive and thrive, the mainstream agricultural, mining and construction sectors, long time ago, they motivated both the colonial and apartheid masters to create a “dual economy” that would exclude black people in the bantustans from achieving prosperity, from competing with white people and from playing a role in our economy except being cheap labour.
Thirty years later, you can drive through rural EC, it’s barren because private capital can only invest in consumerism rather than the creation of real wealth building assets. To this day, most black people exist on the periphery of our plutocracy and its development agenda.
Barriers for black people to engage in business are almost insurmountable. Government ANC or GNU is doing little to nothing to invest in the things in the basic things that we all need to live well and prosper: food, shelter, energy, water, infrastructure, social equity and environmental wellbeing.
So as far as I’m concerned, inclusive growth is something of a misnomer. Before we start talking about a sustainable inclusive economy we need to address all those unsustainable things including policies that stand in the way of being included rather than being others.
Remember political democracy without economic democracy is not possible.
'Thirty years later, you can drive through rural EC, it’s barren because private capital can only invest in consumerism rather than the creation of real wealth building assets.'
Private capital invests where they can make profits, Mpumelelo. Why is it that they cannot profit from investing in the rural EC?
Good question. Risk? Qamata Irrigation Scheme is 4000 ha, water every second of the year, 37 leydams, local labour etc. But I have not seen any private investment in that scheme for 30 years despite the scheme being in the NDP.
Either the property rights are not guaranteed – land rights or safety around capital investments – or there is poor market access – it is too expensive to get goods to market because of poor infrastructure. The risk probably does not justify the meagre returns. So the obvious question is: what is necessary to lower the risk for private capital?
As always - thank you so much for sharing such optimistic, inspiring insights. First and foremost, as South Africans, we need to step into our power - by knowing that we can!
As a public servant, I have come to understand that difficult task of "doing" in the age of social media, where everything that is done (action) is subjected to scrutiny. This often seems to support a leading narrative that it is safer to not do anything. Resulting in endless speculation (noise).
I'm interested to unpack one of your recommendations a bit further to explore nuances and underlying (perhaps hidden or uncomfortable) assumptions. See: "Expanding high-speed internet access, especially in underserved rural and township areas, is essential for integrating more South Africans into the digital economy. Innovative models like pay-as-you-go fibre, pioneered by companies like Fibertime, demonstrate that affordable connectivity is possible."
In imaging what rollout would look like, the following considerations emerge.
What about the unintended consequences of connectivity, such as access to gambling and pornography? Here, the chronology of interventions comes up. When we propose increased connectivity, would it perhaps be sensible to look at societal factors, and to take an intentional approach to developing community "social fabric" to see if we can cultivate more responsible Internet usage by addressing connectivity-enabled addictions more head-on? Here, I would imagine that policy makers can responsibly enable through two levers; firstly by regulation marketing. If increased connectivity will lead to increased marketing, then policy needs to be in place to ensure that low income households are not subjected to marketing of products and services that degrade social fabric. Secondly, through education - when increasing connectivity, we need to also increase knowledge of how to use the Internet more effectively, and responsibly.
These are just a few ideas that came up for me that I wanted to get your feedback on.
Thank you for raising these thoughtful points. I agree that increased internet access can bring risks, such as gambling and pornography, but I don’t believe these risks justify withholding access. If they are serious concerns, they should be tackled directly—for example, through measures like taxing gambling activities. Denying people connectivity because of potential misuse risks adopting a paternalistic stance, implying that those who can already afford access are somehow exempt from these challenges. Schools, in particular, need to be better equipped to educate children about the dangers of the internet, including social media. While I see value in the move to make schools no-phone areas, this shouldn’t mean sticking our heads in the sand and assuming these risks will simply disappear.
Thanks for responding. I don't want my comment to be misunderstood though. I did not suggest withholding access. I proposed that in rolling out access, we thoughtfully, and meaningfully deal with potential risks, which perhaps requires doing prepatory work. Our thinking around the full "area of intervention" where we need to "empower" instead of potentially "disempower" is what I am just suggesting requires innovative approaches. Solutions are too often too narrowly focused. I want to offer the analogy of planting trees - sometimes groundwork is required to ensure that what we plant can survive. I think these factors (like protection policies) are far more complex and require lots of discussion to move towards "sensible viability" and I am also pointing to our lack of protection policies as a gap. It requires courageous leadership, and action - something we are seeing less of because of social media misinformation and noise being the dominant, disabling narrative at times - because we "give power to it." Don't know if what I am trying to convey is coming across. I'm trying to articulate a dynamic that is quite difficult for me to discribe.
Sometimes I wish I knew what inclusive growth in the context of SA means. To survive and thrive, the mainstream agricultural, mining and construction sectors, long time ago, they motivated both the colonial and apartheid masters to create a “dual economy” that would exclude black people in the bantustans from achieving prosperity, from competing with white people and from playing a role in our economy except being cheap labour.
Thirty years later, you can drive through rural EC, it’s barren because private capital can only invest in consumerism rather than the creation of real wealth building assets. To this day, most black people exist on the periphery of our plutocracy and its development agenda.
Barriers for black people to engage in business are almost insurmountable. Government ANC or GNU is doing little to nothing to invest in the things in the basic things that we all need to live well and prosper: food, shelter, energy, water, infrastructure, social equity and environmental wellbeing.
So as far as I’m concerned, inclusive growth is something of a misnomer. Before we start talking about a sustainable inclusive economy we need to address all those unsustainable things including policies that stand in the way of being included rather than being others.
Remember political democracy without economic democracy is not possible.
'Thirty years later, you can drive through rural EC, it’s barren because private capital can only invest in consumerism rather than the creation of real wealth building assets.'
Private capital invests where they can make profits, Mpumelelo. Why is it that they cannot profit from investing in the rural EC?
Good question. Risk? Qamata Irrigation Scheme is 4000 ha, water every second of the year, 37 leydams, local labour etc. But I have not seen any private investment in that scheme for 30 years despite the scheme being in the NDP.
Either the property rights are not guaranteed – land rights or safety around capital investments – or there is poor market access – it is too expensive to get goods to market because of poor infrastructure. The risk probably does not justify the meagre returns. So the obvious question is: what is necessary to lower the risk for private capital?
Hi Johan,
As always - thank you so much for sharing such optimistic, inspiring insights. First and foremost, as South Africans, we need to step into our power - by knowing that we can!
As a public servant, I have come to understand that difficult task of "doing" in the age of social media, where everything that is done (action) is subjected to scrutiny. This often seems to support a leading narrative that it is safer to not do anything. Resulting in endless speculation (noise).
I'm interested to unpack one of your recommendations a bit further to explore nuances and underlying (perhaps hidden or uncomfortable) assumptions. See: "Expanding high-speed internet access, especially in underserved rural and township areas, is essential for integrating more South Africans into the digital economy. Innovative models like pay-as-you-go fibre, pioneered by companies like Fibertime, demonstrate that affordable connectivity is possible."
In imaging what rollout would look like, the following considerations emerge.
What about the unintended consequences of connectivity, such as access to gambling and pornography? Here, the chronology of interventions comes up. When we propose increased connectivity, would it perhaps be sensible to look at societal factors, and to take an intentional approach to developing community "social fabric" to see if we can cultivate more responsible Internet usage by addressing connectivity-enabled addictions more head-on? Here, I would imagine that policy makers can responsibly enable through two levers; firstly by regulation marketing. If increased connectivity will lead to increased marketing, then policy needs to be in place to ensure that low income households are not subjected to marketing of products and services that degrade social fabric. Secondly, through education - when increasing connectivity, we need to also increase knowledge of how to use the Internet more effectively, and responsibly.
These are just a few ideas that came up for me that I wanted to get your feedback on.
Thanks.
Thank you for raising these thoughtful points. I agree that increased internet access can bring risks, such as gambling and pornography, but I don’t believe these risks justify withholding access. If they are serious concerns, they should be tackled directly—for example, through measures like taxing gambling activities. Denying people connectivity because of potential misuse risks adopting a paternalistic stance, implying that those who can already afford access are somehow exempt from these challenges. Schools, in particular, need to be better equipped to educate children about the dangers of the internet, including social media. While I see value in the move to make schools no-phone areas, this shouldn’t mean sticking our heads in the sand and assuming these risks will simply disappear.
Thanks for responding. I don't want my comment to be misunderstood though. I did not suggest withholding access. I proposed that in rolling out access, we thoughtfully, and meaningfully deal with potential risks, which perhaps requires doing prepatory work. Our thinking around the full "area of intervention" where we need to "empower" instead of potentially "disempower" is what I am just suggesting requires innovative approaches. Solutions are too often too narrowly focused. I want to offer the analogy of planting trees - sometimes groundwork is required to ensure that what we plant can survive. I think these factors (like protection policies) are far more complex and require lots of discussion to move towards "sensible viability" and I am also pointing to our lack of protection policies as a gap. It requires courageous leadership, and action - something we are seeing less of because of social media misinformation and noise being the dominant, disabling narrative at times - because we "give power to it." Don't know if what I am trying to convey is coming across. I'm trying to articulate a dynamic that is quite difficult for me to discribe.