Saturday 18 July 2020

THE IMPACT OF PUBLIC DEBT ON THE SOUTH AFRICAN ECONOMY.


INTRODUCTION
Economics can be defined as a social science concerned with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services. It studies how individuals, businesses, governments, and nations make choices on allocating resources to satisfy their wants and needs, trying to determine how these groups should organise and coordinate efforts to achieve maximum output. It is broken down into macroeconomics, which concentrates on the behavior of the aggregate economy, and microeconomics, which focuses on individual consumers and businesses.

Public debt, sometimes also referred to as government debt, represents the total outstanding debt (bonds and other securities) of a country’s central government. It is often expressed as a ratio of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Public debt can be raised both externally and internally, where external debt is the debt owed to lenders outside the country and internal debt represents the government’s obligations to domestic lenders. According to Hadhek and Mrad (2014), public debt exists independently outside the public finances and budget. Therefore, public debt is a universal phenomenon that can be found in any economy in the world. This is because a loan is considered mainly as a component of modern public finance. In fact, public debt is closely related to the budget deficit. However, it appears that debt accumulation is necessary to finance investment projects.

In both academia and policymaking, the issue of how public debt affects economic growth has remained a concern (Mohanty and Mishra, 2016). The burden of public debt is an economic issue, dominating debates in different sectors of our society. The post-financial crisis era has been marked with an increasing level of public debt at an international, national and sub-national level (Masoga, 2018).  According to Focus Economics (2019), public debt is an important source of resources for a government to finance public spending and fill holes in the budget. Public debt as a percentage of GDP is usually used as an indicator of the ability of a government to meet its future obligations.

Humberto, Tadas, and Ausrine (2012) argue that public borrowing is a non-avoidable nor is it a reprehensible phenomenon of economic growth. Rather, it is regarded as a way to boost economic growth. This is because of money injection from foreign investors to the economy, and distribution of assets among those in possession of enough to utilise at present moments and those in need of assets to develop economic initiatives or other needs. Among the macroeconomic indicators, public debt is the main indicator forming an image of the countries in the international markets (Humberto, et al, 2012)

This essay seeks to determine whether public debt has an impact on the economic growth of The Republic of South Africa.


NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
South Africa has drafted a National Development Plan (NDP) stating the vision for 2030. In the plan, it seems that the main focus is to reduce poverty and inequality. It is mentioned in the National Development Plan that the growth of the economy must be accelerated in such a way that all South Africans are benefited (National Development Plan, 2011). Therefore, rapid economic growth is said to be key in broadening opportunities for everyone. As proposed by the National Development Plan (2011), the accelerated economic growth is also one of the required priorities to raise employment in order to achieve the objectives of the National Development Plan. However, it seems to appear that the plan does not state much about public debt as an impediment to achieving the anticipated economic growth. In this study, it is important to bring to light the idea that achieving an economic growth rate will reduce poverty and inequality by 2030 and that it requires the government to deal with growing public debt. It is notable that many variables in the economy may restrict the likelihood of achieving some of the objectives of the National Development Plan by 2030 (National Development Plan, 2011). However, in this essay, the primary focus is on public debt so as to reveal its impact on South Africa’s economic growth. The National Development Plan suggests that the economy should grow by 5 percent a year to ensure the acceleration of employment and economic transformation (National Development Plan, 2011).

ECONOMIC GROWTH
Goal number 8 of the United Nation’s Sustainable Developmental Goals (SDGs) outlines the importance of achieving economic growth for 193 countries before 2030. (United Nations 2018). As the global economy is adapting to the fourth the industrial revolution, countries have been mandated to invest in what is deemed critical areas such as technological development, human capital, artificial intelligence and machine learning. Without these important investments, economic growth will be stagnant, and the countries will become less competitive with investment being channeled into traditional methods (World Economic Forum, 2017).

The South African economy is the second-largest economy in Africa, after Nigeria. Since the dawn of its international sanctions in 1996, South Africa’s GDP has almost reached a peak of $400 billion in 2011 but has since declined to roughly $385 billion in 2019. During this period, foreign exchange reserves increased from $3 billion to nearly $50 billion thus expending a diversified economy with a growing middle class, within two decades of ending Apartheid while recording its highest yet public debt equating to 62.2% of the country’s GDP. This followed an incline of 5.5% from 2018.

In September 2019, the country’s GDP contracted by 1.4 percent in its fourth quarter, following an increase of 0.8 percent contraction in the previous period and a 0.1 decrease. In the same quarter South Africa, experienced its worst rolling blackouts which harshly affected seven industries, being, government services (-0.4% vs 2.4% in Q3); utilities (-4% vs -4.9%); agriculture, forestry & fishing (-7.6% vs -4.5%); trade, catering & accommodation (-3.8% vs 2.6%); manufacturing (-1.8% vs -4.4%); storage & communication (-7.2% vs -5.4%) and construction (-5.9% vs -6.9%). Nevertheless, output for mining bounced back (1.8% vs -6.1%) which was boosted by iron ore, gold, and platinum group metals. The financial sector grew (2.7% vs 1.6%). In March 2020, the South African economy was confirmed to be in a recession and with an increase of 6.5% in poverty levels.

PUBLIC DEBT EFFECT ON ECONOMY
Previous research done on government debt indicates that affects a country’s economy in either a positive or negative manner. This effect mainly lays with the amount of debt and its purpose. The amount of debt to be borrowed by a state is typically measured using the debt-to-GDP ratio. In contrast, Reinhart, Reinhart, and Rogoff (2015) claim that the ratio should be at most 90%. The economy would be able to grow with the debt threshold of less than 90 percent. Beyond the threshold, public debt will cause an adverse effect on the economy. It is proven empirically by looking at the case of developing countries, in which the debt threshold was found at 88.2% (Karadam 2018). The economy can grow positively when the debt level is below the threshold. However, when public debt to GDP exceeds the threshold, the growth starts to decline.

Lower economic growth that is caused by high public debt can also be explained through the overlapping generations model (Blanchard, 1985; Diamond, 1965; Modigliani, 1961), where the increase in the public debt will be partly used up national savings that were meant for future generations. A reduction in the level of national savings will force the interest rate to increase, thus demotivate incoming investors. Lower investments will result in lower capital accumulation, leading to lower economic growth.

JUSTIFICATION OF PUBLIC DEBT
I.                   UNFORESEEN EMERGENCIES
South African government, like any other government, often resorts to public borrowing in order to meet unforeseen emergencies such as war, flood, draught and in the latest unfolding, the COVID-19 epidemic, where the government secured R500 million worth of funding from the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the Development Bank. Such huge expenditure of national emergency or disaster cannot be met solely by taxation, particularly in developing countries such as South Africa.

       I.            FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
As already mentioned, public borrowing is perceived to be a vital source of development finance. The state is required to build up industries, economic and social infrastructures. The inadequacy of tax revenue has led the government to adopt the borrowing policy to finance these activities. In the long run, these economic activities, are revenue-yielding. Since they are revenue-yielding or permanent income generators, government borrowing is justified.

    II.             TO CURB INFLATION
By resorting to public borrowing, the government can draw off excessive purchasing power of the public. In an already inflationary situation, since people’s disposable income tends to rise, their purchasing potential also rises. Under the circumstance, the purchasing power of the people can be curbed by resorting to borrowing by the government. However, some economists argue that, as an anti-inflationary method, taxation works better.

 III.             TO CONTROL DEPRESSION
During depression, economic activity remains at a low level. To stimulate the economy, what is required is the increase in public spending. Public works programmes are one such example of government investment spending. Under depression, financing of economic activity through taxation is not advisable. By increasing the volume of government spending an economy can be stimulated and, government spending has a multiplier effect on income and employment. Thus, additional government spending financed through public borrowing may revive the economy from a state of depression.

CONCLUSION
Public borrowing is unavoidable in certain circumstances and not essentially bad for a state as there is no mutual consensus on the relationship between public debt and economic growth. The relationship can be positive, negative, or even non-linear. Public debt can only destabilise an economy if it rises to an abnormal extent, of which that is not that case in the Republic of South Africa. The 90% threshold as argued in the Reinhart-Rogoff hypothesis, is not applied across all countries. The findings may help governments and policymakers to design their own fiscal policy by investigating how existing debts affect the growth level.



REFERENCES

Blanchard, O. (1985). Debt, deficits, and finite horizons. Journal of Political Economy, 93(2), 223–247.

Diamond, P. A. (1965). National debt in a neoclassical growth model. The American Economic Review, 55(5), 1126–1150

Focus Economics. (2019) Public Debt (% of GDP). Retrieved from  https://www.focus-economics.com/economic-indicator/public-debt

Hadhek, Z. and Mrad, F. (2014). Debt and Economic Growth, International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, Vol. 4 (2), pp. 440-448.

Humberto, N.R.R., Tadas, V. and Ausrine, L. (2012). The Effect of Public Debt and Other Determinants on the Economic Growth of Selected European Countries, Economics and Management, Vol. 17, pp. 914-921.

Karadam, D. Y. (2018). An investigation of nonlinear effects of debt on growth. Journal Of Economic Asymmetries, 18, 1–13.

Masoga, MM. (2017). The Impact of Public Debt On Economic Growth In South Africa: A Cointegration Approach, 1, 1-3.

Modigliani, F. (1961). Long-run implications of alternative fiscal policies and the burden of the national debt. Economic Journal, 71(284), 730–755.

Mohanty, A.R and Mishra, B.R. (2016). Impact of Public Debt on Economic Growth: Evidence from Indian States, Vilakshan, XIMB Journal of Management, Vol.13, pp.1- 21.

National Development Plan. (2011). Our future makes it work, Executive summary, 2030, National planning commission.

Reinhart, C. M., Reinhart, V., & Rogoff, K. (2015). Dealing with debt. Journal of International Economics, 96(S1), S43–55

United Nations. (2018). Sustainable development goals. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/

World Economic Forum. (2017). The global competitiveness Report 2017–2018. Geneva: World Economic Forum


Wednesday 24 June 2020

ANC WARD 115 – CONGRATULATES THE ANC FOR A SUCCESSFUL VICTORY IN DECLARING BO-KAAP A HERITAGE SITE

After several attempts by the Democratic Alliance to sell the Bo-Kaap area to the highest bidder, we are proud to congratulate the ANC Dullah Omar Regional leadership, alongside our leaders in the Provincial Legislature in the Western Cape province and Sub-council 16 on leading successful motions in declaring Bo-Kaap a heritage site.

As the ANC we have always been anti-gentrification. We deem this as an unfortunate event that still bares scares of the dark times of Apartheid and the Union of South Africa, for many of our people. The ongoing gentrification of Woodstock and Sea Point is something we condemn with the highest contempt it deserves.

The struggle of Bo-Kaap has been a long journey that saw all-hands-on-deck from the ANC structures to the ANC Youth League structures in the province. It is one where the President of the Republic of South Africa, had reassured the Muslim community in his address to the Muslim Judicial Council that he agrees that Bo-Kapp should be declared a living heritage (area) however processes must be followed in doing so.

This is a victory the ANC celebrates with the people Bo-Kaap and this victory for them. In 2018, Bo-Kaap, experienced several protests by its community members who opposed the continued gentrification and private development that represents a serious threat to the character, culture, history and peoples' livelihood of Bo-Kaap.

When we speak of Land Redistribution, this what we mean. People being given land and not sold to private developers. This is a victory we celebrate with the people of Bo-Kaap.

Let us all stop gentrification on 08 May 2019 and vote ANC.

Issued on behalf of Ward 115 by
Branch Secretary 
Luchulumanco Nanto
062 685 4615

Friday 8 May 2020

HAWKERS LEFT IN THE COLD DUE TO COVID-19

South Africa is in the third week of its national lockdown due to COVID-19 which is responsible for the death of 25 citizens. This comes from a total of 73 028 tested citizens with 2 003 confirmed cases and 410 recoveries.

With this outbreak, President Cyril Ramaphosa announced that the country will be on lockdown, effective 27 March, for 3 weeks. This was later extended to 2 weeks on 09 April.

As a result, South Africans have been asked to stay at home and only leave their homes when they require essential items such as medicine or food. The sale of alcohol and cigarettes has been prohibited during this period as well as walking for exercise or jogging. Public gatherings have been banned and funerals are restricted to 50 people.

Only those who carry out essential services have been permitted to work from their respective workplaces whilst the rest of the country has been asked to work from home. These employees are always expected to carry with them a permit that states that they carry out essential services.

This global epidemic has harmed the global economy where the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of many countries has decreased. South Africa was not immune to this, as the country is left in a recession and with an increase of 6.5% in poverty levels. The country’s GDP has contracted by 1.4% in its fourth quarter. This followed a revised 0.8% contraction in the third quarter. With the current economic state, many companies are considering the retrenchment of staff members to avoid running on a deficit.

R500 million was allocated by the Department of Small and Business Development to assist Small, Medium and Micro Enterprise (SMME) in distress, and the National Treasury has further allocated R30 billion to the COVID-19 Temporary Employer/Employee Relief Scheme to support companies that are closed during the lockdown. The requirements for SMMEs to access the funding are:
*They must be 100% owned by South African citizens
*They should employ at least 70% of SA nationals       
*They must be registered with the South African
*Revenue Service (SARS) and tax-compliant.

Despite this initiative, the self-employed and hawkers are excluded as they do not qualify for any COVID-19 related benefits. This means that many South Africans are left without any source of income. To ensure compliance, the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) and the South African Police have been deployed throughout the country. With this, many hawkers are unable to trade and as a result, have no source of income as they are forced back into their houses.

In the township of Alexandra, hawkers have been battling for a permit they were promised that would allow them to be able to carry on trade on the streets and outside shopping centres, however, there have been complications with the jurisdiction of the permit, as the permits received by hawkers are not stamped with an official government stamp and as a result, the SANDF render the current permits they have null and void. Defenceless hawkers are left out in the cold to defend themselves against armed soldiers and police. No official has thus far taken ownership of this.