Recently, Trevor Manuel, the Minister of Finance, writing in Cape Times (Monday, July, 7, 2008), invited our nation (South Africa) to enter into dialogue with him about an age old issue that has baffled almost all economic studies: How do you make a country’s economy grow? Or rather, in our case, as the minister pointed out; how do you make an economy grow in broadband extent that puts serious dent on unemployment and poverty? There have been innumerable studies about how to make a country’s economy grow since the moral philosopher (no he was not an economist, the field had not even been devised by then) Adam Smith, wrote The Wealth of Nations.
Studies mostly look at fiscal policies; others to the relationship between free trade and economic growth. By now the only thing clear is that neither free trade nor protectionism is a cure-all. Some thinkers are even starting to think the field of Economics is more masquillage than real scientific study. Our Minister of Finance seems to still have confidence in what he calls mixed economic policies. In closer scrutiny mixed policies is more or less an arbitrary term that means different things to different people. That, of course, is the ANC trump card, pragmatism and manufacturing illusions of debate while luring your opponent by subjunctive means to your point of view. Still, let’s give the minister a benefit of doubt in any case.
I can forsee Zwelizima Vavi of COSATU (after his preoccupation with march action against food price rises, and dying for Msholozi) contribution. He’d say; foreign investment is crucial for the growth of any economy; but no economy has ever been developed by foreign investment. Foreign investors are like bees; attracted only by blooming flowers that need cross-pollination, but will be on the first flight at first signs of nectar drying up. Private investors, the unionist will declare. Especially foreign ones, are impatient and unwilling to sacrifice immediate returns for future gains. They will not take risks on new industries or poor countries, at least not in the absence of some other advantage (like tariff protection or government subsidy). So the government must come up with aggressive government policies designed to protect and nurture domestic economy.
Heaven forbids, a professor of Economics somewhere will say. There is not even a guarantee that when governments create protective umbrellas—via tariffs, subsidies, restrictions on imports, etc—for domestic companies, these will have a chance over time to become globally competitive, thus raising the level of prosperity of the country as a whole. He will remind us that these umbrellas have costs because they raise prices for domestic consumers, and often cut off access to better and cheaper foreign goods. Can future economic growth of the country justify the present suffering of consumers? The prof will ask, and conclude. The ideal here is to find a balance, and then like our minister, be a little vague on the specifics.
No, no! Dr. Balde Nzimande of SACP will say. It is a fact that history tells us is free trade and free markets are more of a bane to developing countries than a boon. And those rich countries that insist poorer ones should follow neoliberal prescriptions are hypocrites, insisting on solutions they themselves did not follow at this stage of their development. They’re still doing it now; look at how they still protect their vulnerable industries, like farming, from global competition. They believe in free trade only where they have competitive advantage. No country can ever develop meaningfully without state owner¬ship of enterprises. What’s needed is for the government to give our own manufacturers an edge by protection. This will allow our country to ascend to the economic ladder so that we can eventually compete with wealthier nations. Learn from China people.
Nonsense, Helene Zillie of the DA would say. The wealth of any nation depends largely on Intangible Capital; that is skills of the populations and the quality of the country’s institutions supporting economic activity. Any country that does not adequately deal with these two issues might as well forget about any economic development. Most rich countries, for instance, in proportion to their overall wealth, have very little natural wealth; yet they use it efficiently for high production, thanks largely to skills and transparency. They find it easier to attract foreign capital because of trustworthy institutions of economic activity, like civil society, an efficient judicial system, clear property rights, and effective government. Leave business alone, promote free trade, and all shall be added. By the way, I’ve been reading, rather my researchers, the laureate for Economics (1976), Milton Friedman. I think he had pretty good ideas. Why not we just abolition the Reserve Bank and replace its control over interest rates and the money supply with a mechanical rule for monetary growth. And, eh, if you want all that, vote for the DA. We shall show you how to manage the economy with clear decisive hand that benefits all.
Enraged and perspiring, the Reserve Bank will, recalling something he read in the Newsweek by Melville J. Ulmer, come shouting. What we’re trying to do in our country, he’d say, the exponent of laissez-faire economics cannot appreciate, because they ‘oppose government activity of practically all kinds. If it were up to them ‘[they] would abolish virtually all regulations on industry, working conditions, and the professions.’ Despite the blunders of Thatcherism ‘[They] would turn over to private industry the nation’s schools, highways, federal parks, the post office and all other publicly operated services like water supply, local buses and subways.... [They] would terminate all government efforts to stabilize the economy through fiscal and monetary policies, public works or other means.’ They would abolish worker’s unions because they say they help cartelize industry to the detriment of consumer. They would even rubbish the idea of “corporate responsibility”.
A researcher in the Finance ministry department, seating on a cold room, will recall being impressed with Friedman’s book, Capitalism and Freedom, even if it was worse on other issues. He’ll recall how the apostle of “monetarism” (the idea that changes in the money supply are the prime causes of inflation and the business cycle) thought even if “fiscal policy could have some useful effects, there’s no reason to believe government managers could use the policy at the right times and in the proper amounts to achieve the desired effect.” By an argument that fiscal manipulations tend to introduce “a largely random disturbance that is simply added to other disturbances.” He’ll impress his ideas on the minister who’ll immediately call a meeting with the Governor. The Governor, who’s a little obsessed with the Keynesian notion of fiscal policy as government’s best tool to manage the economy, will reluctantly agree. The question is, the Governor would ask, how do we put this in a revolutionary language that’s acceptable to Blade and Vavi. Live that to me, the Minister will say, and duty the researcher to pen an article for him and they send it to the media. The media will want to know how JZ (Jacob Zuma) sees the issue and will be told; “We’ve all confidence in cde Trevor.”
No comments:
Post a Comment