Michael J. Meyer
University of North-West, South Africa
In Third World countries in general, and Africa in particular,
globalization has resulted in the IMF and World Bank assuming the driving seat
of economic policy. These institutions not only provide some of the financial
backing, but also most of the policy prescriptions such as Structural
Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) and theoretical frameworks for the new
liberalized global order. With particular focus on the dogmatic gravitation
towards neo-liberalism in South Africa's transformational economic policy
pronouncements and action, the African National Congress (ANC) displays a
fundamental paradigm shift in terms of its original economic policy.
This shift depicts an eventful retreat from strong socialist principles
embedded in the Freedom Charter to a compromise towards a mixed economy and
growth through distribution, and a final capitulation to a home-grown
SAP - Growth, Employment and Redistribution (GEAR). GEAR perceives
liberalization and neo-liberalism as a panacea for the ills of the economy,
public sector and accelerated socio-economic service delivery. However, GEAR
has effectively undermined the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) -
the ANC's original 1994 "socialist inclined policy framework", around which
they contested and won the first democratic elections - which carries grim
social and political, as well as economic consequences.
It appears rather strange that neo-liberalism, which was subject to extreme opposition by the ANC and its present social partners - the South African Communist Party (SACP) and the Council of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) - during the apartheid years is now actively pursued by the ANC, even in the wake of present strong opposition from its social partners.
Against the backdrop of globalization and neo-liberalism in particular, this paper sets out to address two issues. First, to explain when, why and how the ANC embraced neo-liberalism. Second, using the contentious issue of privatization - a cornerstone of neo-liberalism - as an example, to illustrate how neo-liberalism has become a significant force to divide and alter both political and economic alliances in South Africa.
The mounting global order is not merely driven and characterized by vast economic growth and worldwide expansion and penetration, designated as globalization, but it is also facilitated and advanced by liberalization. The two are interdependent and mutually inclusive. Globalization is the integrated process of economic and technological expansion aimed at the opening up and integration of the entire world into and under one economic system. Liberalization provides the policy lubricants and neo-liberalism the theoretical formulations to streamline the implementation of the process. Throughout the developing world, the most explicit stakeholders driving this process are the Bretton Woods Institutions (BWIs) - the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (WB) and related institutions. The BWIs not only play the role of providing some of the financial 'oils' but also most of the policy prescriptions such as Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs), programme supervision, performance surveillance and theoretical frameworks of the new liberalized global order. As is well documented in the literature, the result of radical privatizations and the deliberate reduction of the economic, social and even security functions of the State, SAP's have severely undermined the resources, capacities, utility - and the very legitimacy of the State (Keet, 1999) .
Since 1994 there has been growing dissatisfaction with service delivery and employment creation as embedded in the RDP - the policy framework within which the ANC contested and won the first democratic elections in South Africa (SA). Presently in SA there is a huge backlog in providing access to basic services as defined in the RDP, the Constitution and other applicable legislation. There is a legacy of the inequitable distribution of resources as well as corrupt and inefficient practices in some areas. Furthermore, President Mbeki has stressed several times recently that the challenge of his government is to improve the delivery of social services to the poor in SA. The primary instrument of delivery will be a transformed Public Service. SA has poured most resources into maintaining fiscal discipline with relative success. It has not been nearly as successful in allocating resources in line with strategic priorities. Yet the President is now aiming to shift attention to improving the effectiveness and efficiency of delivery before achieving allocative efficiency.
In addition, the 1998 White Paper on Local Government was initiated "...against the backdrop of globalization and the redefinition of the nation state as well as a new emphasis on decentralization." (GNU, 1998: 4). The design of this White Paper followed the government's acknowledgement of serious policy implementation shortcomings on social service delivery issues. This and the consequent closure of the RDP Office at central level during 1996, together with the recent (1999) unceremonious closure of the RDP Portfolio Committee at national level (RDP Development Monitor, 1999: 2) was arguably to de-politicize (the lack of) service delivery. In the wake of the enormous backlog, the responsibility to implement and expedite social service delivery was devolved to line departments, provincial governments and also placed firmly on the shoulders of local government. This raises doubt on whether the government is committed to social service delivery, or whether the State is merely shedding its social responsibility by means of an unfunded mandate to the sub-national level: the devolution of functions without the required financial and administrative capacity. However, after the 1999 national election, President Mbeki firmly placed the RDP budget control in the President's Office (Business Day, 6/7/99). The RDP Development Monitor (1999: 2) aptly comments on this issue: "The mood is one of centrally coordinated efficiency, less the era of compromise, adaptation and experimentation. But whatever efficiency gains are made may not always compensate for decentralized creativity and close interaction with the communities served."
Johnson (Sowetan, 25/10/96) claims that with the ANC's victory in the 1994 national elections, it was transparent that both the SACP and the trade unions: "... saw its triumph as a stepping stone to full-blown socialism." The crucial mechanism towards this transformation was to be the RDP which represents, as Johnson notes: "... a massive exercise in state welfare and redistribution that was at the heart of the ANC's 1994 election campaign." Rather, as it turned out, the Government of National Unity (GNU) did not follow socialism as an ideology for development, but seemingly opted for a completely opposing ideology of 'full-blown liberal capitalism', particularly with the adoption of its new WB/IMF style macro-economic strategy (GEAR) during 1996.
With the government's macro-economic strategy tabled in Parliament on 14 June 1996, titled - Growth, Employment and Redistribution: A Macro-Economic Strategy (often referred to as GEAR) (GNU, 1996c), a radical change took place within the ANC. Lehulere (1997: 73) argues that: "It became clear that the lack of service delivery by the ANC was not just a product of sabotage by those who had supported apartheid in the past. The lack of service delivery was a result of the policies adopted by the ANC, in particular GEAR." With the release of GEAR, Deputy President Mbeki greeted the media by saying, "Call me a Thatcherite", whilst Finance Minister Manual warned that the GEAR document is "non-negotiable" (Sunday Times - Business Times , 16/6/96). These statements are clearly indicative of government's rather dogmatic endorsement of neo-liberalism.
The response to GEAR has been diverse within the wider democratic and workers' movements. Some groupings agree that GEAR is a radical shift to the right but should be seen within the context that GEAR "... is a product of the constraints facing the ANC." In agreement with this view, Andrew Prior (Business Day , 19/8/97) argues that the ANC's paradigm shift was not fundamentally a political decision, but that: "... globalization of the world's economies has removed the ANC's room to maneuver ... Defiance of world economic trends is now immediately penalized by investment withdrawal, currency weakness, more costly loans and capital outflow." According to this view, it would not be a correct response to 'label' the policy as neo-liberal as some in the democratic movement are doing. "What was needed was an 'engagement' with the ANC so as to strengthen the positive elements of GEAR" (Lehulere, 1997: 73). Conversely, Michel Chossudowski (Mail & Guardian , 14/2-20/2/97), author of The Globalization of Poverty , emphatically questions the assertion that economic sovereignty is inevitably subject to globalization: "Governments can say no [to the forces of globalization]. Are governments more concerned to serve their creditors than to serve the people?" Furthermore, some criticized GEAR explicitly as a neo-liberal program and a home-grown structural adjustment program, with the ANC capitulating to IMF and WB externalities (Lehulere, 1997; Adelzadeh, 1996).
In this regard Lehulere (1997: 73-78) strongly suggests that GEAR was not singular in the ANC's fall into neo-liberalism: "... but was the aggregate of drifts into neo-liberalism in various areas of social, economic and political policy." Nonetheless, the dogmatic gravitation towards neo-liberalism in SA's transformational economic policy pronouncements and action by the ANC certainly display a fundamental paradigm shift in terms of the ANC's original economic policy. How did this happen?
|The essence of GEAR|
GEAR provides the GNU's macro-economic blueprint which emphasizes privatization, growth and employment. The strategy envisaged an economic growth rate of 6 percent per annum and job creation of 833,000 by the year 2000 by fostering a socio-economic environment conducive to foreign investment. The principle objectives and fiscal elements of GEAR include:
|Relationship between RDP and GEAR|
In terms of policy rhetoric, RDP (ANC: 1994) is still a top priority and it has been strongly emphasized that the macro-economic strategy is not a substitute for the RDP, but in essence reiterates the principles, goals and objectives of the RDP as set out in the base document and White Paper. Indeed, speaking in Parliament on 16th June 1996, Deputy President Thabo Mbeki emphasized that the macro-economic strategy is: "an elaboration of the reconstruction and development programme, not its substitute". However, certain fiscal policy measures adopted in order to achieve the ambitious deficit targets have had some negative impact on RDP programs and projects, viz :
This leads to the conclusion that within this context, coupled with the fact that the RDP fund does not appear as a separate and prominent item in the 1997/1998 budget, a policy decision has been taken to downsize the RDP. A closer reading of the macro-economic strategy document reveals that the central government is playing WB/IMF rules and that the government is effectively implementing a SAP on the South African economy. As the WB representative in SA, Judith Edstrom (Business Day , 20/8/97) confirmed: "South Africa [is] in effect implementing a World Bank economic reform programme [SAP] without having to borrow [from the WB]." Similarly, the IMF endorsed GEAR, calling for " ... stronger and deeper ..." implementation of trade liberalization and privatization (Business Day, 13/3/00).
|The roots of GEAR|
In discourse around GEAR, various ideologues confirm GEAR as a neo-liberal policy (Lehulere, 1997; Adelzadeh, 1996; Padayachee, 1996; Bond, 1999a). I shall therefore look briefly at the concept of neo-liberalism. It is an economic philosophy, the roots of which stem from the free-market ideals of Adam Smith and popularized by John Keynes during the late 1930s (Martinez and Garcia, 1999: 1). The main policies include, wage restraint, deregulation of labour markets, lowering of tariffs, introduction of constraints to weaken trade union collective bargaining powers, and privatization. Furthermore, an important element of neo-liberalism focuses on the role of the State, wherein the State must not operate at a loss - it must not have a substantial budget deficit - which implies, inter alia, extensive cuts on social expenditure. As Lehulere (1997: 76) notes: "The main aim of neo-liberalism, therefore, is to increase profits of the bosses. In many countries it has led to rising profits for the bosses, and falling wages, less social services, less job security and joblessness for the workers and their communities."
Similar elements of neo-liberalism have certainly manifested in SA today - which creates an environment of strong opposition and contestation. Such opposition is in general publicly articulated by the Council of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and the SACP - the ANC's present social partners.
Considering the notion that the RDP has failed to meet its socio-economic targets and substantially marginalized by the WB/IMF style GEAR, it is worth-while to contrast GEAR and WB/IMF induced SAPs. The resemblance between the policy instruments embedded in GEAR and SAPs is alarmingly explicit. This is of importance, particularly in the light of SAPs having failed dismally to improve the socio-economic development conditions where it was introduced. The following most prominent non-negotiable aspects of GEAR, vis-à-vis SAPs, are noteworthy:
|The contentious nature of neo-liberalism in South Africa|
To illustrate the contentious nature of GEAR as a neo-liberal policy framework, I will focus attention on what is arguably its most controversial element; i.e., privatization - the cornerstone of GEAR. This will be done by examining the previous attempts by the apartheid regime to privatize state owned enterprises (SOEs) and the recent attempts by the ANC to embark on full-scale privatization.
|Privatization in South Africa under the apartheid regime|
Prior to 1985, a strong historical trend of state interventionism in the economy existed. However, after this period the government shifted its policy orientation towards the privatization of SOEs . Lewis (Supplement to the Weekly Mail, 3/3-4/4/90: 8) and Fine (1995: 7) point out that by 1985, the government began to change its stance on the role of State ownership, interventionism and privatization; a change affirmed in the 1985 White Paper on Industrial Development Strategy in the Republic of South Africa (SA Government, 1985) and reaffirmed in the 1987 White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation in the Republic of South Africa (SA Government, 1987). The SA government's privatization initiatives during the late 1980's, should indeed be seen as a radical break with the past, certainly in terms of the anti-statist policy proposals.
This paradigm shift was partly based on the belief that for some privatization of SOEs was necessarily due, not only in SA, but within the context of a global Western anti-statist and privatization phenomenon (SA Government, 1987: par. 1.3). Besides strong emphasis being placed on external and economic factors as the primary rationale for privatization (SA Government, 1987: par. 2.2.2), critics claim that the issue of privatization simply did not arise within the context of a neutral policy choice between private and public ownership. It was also a product of, as well as a response to, a situation created by the ideological will of government to secure and fund the apartheid regime. As an economic measure, privatization was primarily driven by a need to raise funds to increase the government's declining revenue base, service the increasing external debt, strengthen the position of corporate capital and boost the weakening economy (McGregor, 1987: 9; Moolla, 1993: 11; Mahadea, 1988: 149; Fine, 1995: 7-9).
|Effects of, and reaction to the 1987 privatization initiative|
The most visible impact of the government's 1987 privatization drive was the radical resistance against neo-liberalism by the ANC, trade unions and other leftist political groupings. This polarized SA society further and was followed by enormous job losses and increased unemployment because of the commercialization of SOEs during the late 1980s and early 1990s. According to former President de Klerk, commercialization was: "... undertaken to prepare State corporations for privatization ..." (Saturday Star , 25/5/96). However, it is argued that commercialization of SOEs had a disastrous effect in terms of employment loss in the public sector during the 1989-1993 recession (Nkosi, 1991: 112; The African Communist, 1995: 1). In this regard, Jeppe (The Star, 2/1/96) points out that the severe recession of 1989 to 1993, was due, in part, to the commercialization program. Jeppe (The Star, 2/1/96) further states that the recession was aggravated by a total net job loss of 350 000 workers between 1989-1993, of which 20 percent were lost through the commercialization of parastatals; viz ., the railway Transport Network (TRANSNET), Telecommunications (TELKOM), the Post Office and ESKOM. Jeppe (The Star, 2/1/96) concludes that during 1993, these companies employed fewer people than they had in 1960. Similarly, WB economists Fallon and Pereira de Silva (1994: 1) describe the 1988-1993 recession in SA as due partly to a "... considerable decline in investments by parastatals in 1985."
Both political and socio-economic deficiencies acted as major impediments to the development process in SA. With the exclusion of the commercialization process, which continued, privatization of SOEs lost momentum during the early 1990s. However, after the political transformation process in SA during 1994, restructuring and privatization of SOEs resurfaced.
|The Government of National Unity's privatization initiative|
Restructuring of the public sector and privatization of SOEs has resurfaced and assumed centre stage since 1995. According to GNU, this has been necessitated by the need to redress the distortions brought about by apartheid, and the resulting new socio-economic policy (RDP) of the GNU (GNU, 1994). Consequently, a number of public enterprises are currently being urged to conform to processes of reform and restructuring and some earmarked for full or partial privatisation (GNU, 1995).
On 29 October 1994, former Deputy President Mbeki, announced that: "... government will consider full and partial privatization of state assets and SOEs , where appropriate.", to release funds for the reduction of debt and to boost the RDP Fund. Privatization, which he added: "... could also facilitate empowerment of disadvantaged sectors." (The African Communist, 1995: 1). However, since the April 1994 elections, the intentions and policy rhetoric of the ANC-led GNU on privatization have not always been clear. Conflicting signals, often exaggerated by the commercial media, emerged from different official quarters.
Be it as it may, the overriding motive for privatization is to fund the RDP, service State debt, reduce the escalating deficit and attract foreign donors and investors through a 'liberal' pro-privatization drive (GNU, 1996a: 14). Ironically, to a large extent, these motives are based on principles of fiscal relief and ideological variables quite similar to that of the National Party's (NP's) privatization initiative. With history repeating itself, a number of SOEs are currently being urged to conform to processes of restructuring and are in the process of partial and full privatization.
|Reaction to the Government of National Unity's privatization initiatives|
Again, the recent drive by government to restructure and privatize has been met with outrage, notably from the COSATU/SACP alliance and leftist political groupings. However, history teaches us that trade unions' resistance to privatization is located in the apartheid legacy. During the liberation struggle in SA, unions not only involved themselves in industrial related issues but also became highly politicized and militant. Consequently, unions oppose restructuring and privatization from various assumptions and ideological perspectives. Similar to the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa's (SSA's) creed against privatization, resistance in SA is rather severe. Generally, union opposition to privatization in SA includes:
... big businesses' support for restructuring is based on buying into the global community, where a group of multinationals had set themselves up as providing the guidelines on how economies should be run.;
Unfortunately, up to now, it has been the same old elites who have been driving the agenda, largely for reasons of self interest. Who, in reality, have been the change-drivers in the restructuring debate? Firstly, the old managements of the parastatals, who continue to restructure these companies at will, resulting in destruction of services and job loss, particularly in the poorest areas.
Leftist political groupings in SA also show major concern on the possible negative socio-economic development effects of privatization. The reaction of Malatsi, Pan Africanist Congress (PAC) Secretary for Economic Affairs and Development (City Press, 10/12/95) to privatization was that:
Mohlalo, Azanian Peoples Organization (AZAPO) spokesperson (City Press, 10/12/95), relates the GNU's restructuring and privatization plans with the demands of the IMF and WB. He asserts that:
Generally the SACP aligns its views on restructuring and privatization with that of COSATU. Similar to COSATU's and also AZAPO's resistance to the IMF, the SACP (City Press, 20/10/96) interrogates the IMF's bona fide, asserting that: "In the 1980's, it [IMF] broke the international campaign to isolate the apartheid regime, providing them with its biggest loan - R4.5 billion." In addition, Cronin (Business Day, 24/4/96), SACP Deputy General Secretary, claims that privatization measures will, inter alia : "... strip government of any effective strategic role in the economy."
Political groupings at the centre and to the right of the SA political continuum, such as the Democratic Party (DP), Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) and the NP, are sturdily pro-privatization. The DP's initial stance on restructuring focused on privatization and commercialization of SOEs , emphasizing tough recommendations on constitutional amendments to ensure fiscal discipline and a drive to use privatization proceeds to balance the budget deficit (Financial Mail, 18/8/95: 48). Further, in defence of privatization, the DP urged the government to liquidate: "... the huge debt bequeathed [SOEs ] by the last [NP] government" (The Sunday Independent, 26/5/96). In a press release (The Sunday Independent, 26/5/96), the IFP backed the GNU's privatization drive, announcing:
That the ANC has finally realized that governments do not create wealth, but actually consume wealth, is a significant shift in their philosophy [on privatization]. The IFP welcomes the ANC to the free market system.
De Klerk, former leader of the NP, stated that his (the previous) government had carefully prepared State corporations for privatization. He further asserts (Saturday Star, 25/5/96) that:
Both the IFP and the NP strongly criticized the GNU for dragging its feet on implementing privatization of SOEs . Most, the NP blamed the labour unions as the biggest stumbling block in the way of privatization (Saturday Star, 25/5/96) and criticized the ANC for: "... toning down its commitment [to privatization] after an outcry from labour" (The Sunday Independent, 26/5/96).
Organized business appears to be in general agreement with the GNU's privatization drive (SA Foundation, 1996) and therefore, not surprisingly, disagrees vehemently with union privatization interests. Generally, business leaders in SA are of the opinion that privatization will stimulate investor confidence which is: "... badly dented by the high crime rate and the Rand's recent sharp fall" (Sunday Times - Business Times, 23/6/96). In a press statement (Business Day, 16/9/96), the South African Chamber of Business (SACOB) reiterated its pro-privatization stance, prompting government to: "... get on with privatization." The Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut (AHI)  also supports the government's privatization drive. The AHI (The Star- Business Report, 26/3/96) asserts that:
At the request of government, the AHI detailed its views on privatization and the advantages thereof. The response included, inter alia:
It appears that pro-privatization exponents in SA view privatization in terms of the role it can play in reducing government debt and cutting the budget deficit. Conversely, the fears and concerns of anti-privatization proponents in SA can be deduced to a broadly perceived conception that the government is attempting to shed its social responsibility role as envisaged in the RDP. It is therefore important to note the significant consequential relationship between restructuring and privatization on the one hand and the wider issue of social cost, socio-economic development and human development implications. Many aspects of transformation will affect the performance of the RDP, either directly by altering the aims of the RDP itself (e.g., a lack of resources for implementation), or indirectly through the effect restructuring, privatization and retrenchments might have on employment creation and other development needs.
COSATU's concerns in this regard are linked primarily to the apprehension and suspicion that privatization of SOEs will not conform to the present and envisaged role played by SOEs in the provision of utility services to the consumer at affordable rates and the present and envisaged development orientation of SOEs to realize its objectives and the active role it can play to increase the RDP service delivery capacity (COSATU, 1996).
|Impressions of GEAR and sustainable development: 1996-1998|
Since its inception, the impact of GEAR has already shown the negative socio-economic effects generally associated with neo-liberalism. As Bond (1999a) notes:
Looking at the three-year period 1996, 1997 and 1998, Bond (1999b) and Adelzadeh (1999) highlight the miserable failure of GEAR:
Adelzadeh (1999: 1) comments elsewhere that:
Furthermore, other aspects of concern relating to GEAR and its stated targets are:
Indeed neo-liberalism, in the disguise of GEAR, has not only undermined RDP service delivery, employment creation and poverty alleviation, but has also become a significant force to divide and alter both political and economic alliances in SA.
With the intense pressure on the GNU by COSATU to abandon its neo-liberal policies during 1996, President Mandela intractably remarked that:
These statements underline speculation in various press reports on a potential end to the tripartite alliance which both government and labour denied as being premature at the time (The Citizen, 12/2/96; Sunday Times, 21/7/96; The Star - Business Report, 23/7/96; The Star - Business Report, 7/8/96).
More recently, during 1999, disagreement and divisions on the future economic transformation process in SA appear to be deepening to a level of frustration and intolerance, especially from the side of the ANC. Addressing a COSATU Special Congress, Terror Lekota, ANC Chairperson, rebuked COSATU for publicly airing its grievances with government labour and economic policies in the following headstrong manner:
This statement certainly sparked strong reaction from COSATU. However, the question remains - what is the ANC scared of - the truth? The truth that neo-liberal policies are failing the masses and the poorest of the poor who have realized how very little say they have over their own destiny in a world of globalization, regardless of political pluralism and deepening democratic sentiment.
This paper illustrates how the ANC has embraced neo-liberalism and how the government's approach to economic development has failed dismally; in addition, how this failure is lurking to explode in a head-on collision and confrontation between government and those bearing the brunt of the effects of neo-liberalism. Government appears to shy away from its failed policies and social responsibilities: its meager consolation, that the pains of neo-liberalism and its immediate negative socio-economic side effects are but merely transitional and short-term. The reality is that for the poorest of the poor who live a survivalist lifestyle, the need for relief is now. One cannot eat economics - one cannot eat politics! As Bond (1999a) so aptly states: "There Must Be an Alternative! - THEMBA ("hope")."
 For a detailed review and analysis on the negative impact of SAPs and privatization on the social, political and economic fabric in Sub-Saharan Africa, see, inter alia : Adam, C., Cavendish, W., Mistry, P. Adjusting Privatization: Case Studies from Developing Countries. London James Currey, 1992; Balogun, M.J. 'Public Sector and Economic Development: Lessons from Africa's Experience'. Turok, B., Maganya, E., Coetzee, S.F, Beukes, eds. South Africa: Perspectives on Development. Johannesburg: IFAA and AISA, 1994; Banugire, F. R. 'Employment, Incomes, Basic Needs and Structural Adjustment Policy in Uganda: 1980-1987'. Onimode, B. ed. The IMF, the World Bank and the African Debt: The Social and Political Impact. London: Zed Books, 1991; Buthelezi, S. 'IMF and World Bank in Africa: Curing the Disease by Killing the Patient'. Work in Progress 77, 1991, pp. 32-34; Cowan, L.G. Privatization in the Developing World. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1990; Mosley, P., Subasat, T., Weeks, J. 'Assessing Adjustment in Africa'. World Development 23 (9), 1995, pp. 1459-1473; Onimode, B. ed. A Future for Africa: Beyond the Politics of Adjustment. London: Earthscan, 1992; Rendewohld, R. 'Deregulating the Public Sector: Privatisation and Commercialisation in Nigeria'. Annals of Public Cooperatives and Economics 64 (4), 1993, pp. 501-604; Schatz, S.P. 'Structural Adjustment in Africa: A failing Grade So Far'. The Journal of Modern African Studies 32 (4), 1994, pp. 679-692.
 Possible reference is made to the NP's previous dealings with the WB. However, Padayachee (1996: 367) points out that SA had very little financial assistance since the mid-1960s. Nonetheless, over the period 1946-1976, SA received 11 loans for a total amount of $241.8 million. The last loan was received during June 1967 and all loans were settled during 1976. However, a report in the City Press (20/10/96) points out that SA was provided with a loan by the IMF of 4.5 billion Rands during the 1980s.
 A predominantly White Afrikaner national business interest group.
 In the case of the recent partial privatization of TELKOM, the GNU announced that from the proceeds amounting to US$1.26 billion, TELKOM will get US$1 billion and the rest will go to central government to retire debt (Business Day, 9/4/97).
Adelzadeh, A. From the RDP to GEAR: The Gradual Embracing of Neo-liberalism in Economic Policy. National Institute for Economic Policy, August 1996.
Adelzadeh, A. 'The Costs of Staying the Course'. NGQO!: An Economic Bulletin 1 (1) National Institute for Economic Policy. http:\\www.niep.org.za\. 1999, pp.1-3.
The African Communist Second Quarter, 1995.
ANC. The Reconstruction and Development Programme: A Policy Framework. Cape Town: ABC Printers, 1994.
Bond, P. 'Alternatives Emerge from Struggles Against Neoliberal "Development" Strategies'. Alternatives - Alternative Information and Development Centre, September 1999a.
Bond, P. Global Economic Crisis - A View from South Africa. http://aidc.org.za/ archives/pbond_global_economic_crisis.html. August 1999b.
Chikulo, B.C. and Meyer, M.J. Growth, Employment and Redistribution - A Macro Economic Strategy: Implications for the North-West Province. A discussion document commissioned by the Department of the Premier, North-West Province. Mmabatho, 12 July 1996.
COSATU. Social Equity and Job Creation: The Key to a Stable future. Braamfontein: COSATU, 1996.
COSATU. Address to Cosatu Special Congress by Terror Lekota, ANC Chairperson. Midrand, http:/www.cosatu.org.za. 18 August 1999.
Fallon, P. and Pereira de Silva, L.A. 'South Africa: Economic Performance and Policies', Discussion Paper No. 7 (Informal Series), Southern Africa Department, Africa Region, Washington DC: World Bank, 1994.
Fine, B. 'Privatisation and the RDP: A Critical Assessment'. Transformation 27, 1995, pp. 1-23.
Keet, D. Globalisation And Regionalisation - Contradictory Tendencies? Counteractive Tactics? Or Strategic Possibilities? http://aidc.org.za/main.html. 1999.
Lehulere, O. 'The Political Significance of GEAR'. Debate, Issue No. 3, 1997, pp. 73-88.
Madlala, M. 'Trade Union's View of Public Enterprises in South Africa'. Paper presented at a workshop on The Role and Place of Public Enterprises in the Changing South Africa, 23-24 November, Mmabatho. 1995.
Mahadea, D. 'Returning the State's Assets to the Private Sector: A Review of the Case for Privatisation'. Development Southern Africa 5 (2), May 1988, pp. 142-154.
Marais, H. 'All GEARed up'. The African Communist, Third Quarter 1996, pp. 30-42.
Martinez, E. and Garcia, A. What is 'Neo-liberalism'? http:/aidc.org.za/archives/what_is_neo -lib.html. 1999.
McGregor, R, ed. McGregor's Privatisation in South Africa. Kenwyn: Juta, 1987.
Moolla, Z. Project on the Role of the State: Privatization Vs. Nationalization. Research paper submitted to the Macro-economic Research Group, University of the Western Cape, Cape Town. 22 March 1993.
Nkosi, M.Z. 'Nationalisation and Privatisation: Issues to be Resolved'. Naidoo, G, (ed.) Reform and Revolution: South Africa in the Nineties, CODESRIA Book Series, Braamfontein: Skotaville Publishers, 1991.
Onimode, B. 'African Perspectives on Adjustment Programmes and Alternative Development Strategies'. Coetzee, S.F., Turok, B., Beukes, E.P, (eds.). Transition To Democracy: Breaking out of Apartheid, Johannesburg: Institute For African Alternatives, 1994.
Padayachee, V. 'The International Monetary Fund and World Bank in Post-apartheid South Africa: Prospects and Dangers'. Coetzee, J. K. and Graaf, J, (eds.). Reconstruction, Development and People. Halfway House: International Thomas Publishing, 1996.
RDP Development Monitor 5 (8), Craighill: GC Publications, 1999.
SA Foundation. Growth for All. Johannesburg: SA Foundation, 1996.
GNU. White Paper on Local Government. Johannesburg: CTP Book Printers, 1998.
GNU. White Paper on Reconstruction and Development. Pretoria: Government Gazette Number 16085, 15 November 1994.
GNU. White Paper on the Transformation of the Public Service. Pretoria: Government Gazette Number 16838, 24 November 1995.
GNU. National Framework Agreement. Cape Town: February 1996a.
GNU. Restructuring the South African Labour Market: Report of the Presidential Commission to Investigate Labour Market Policy. Cape Town: CTP Book Printers, 1996.
GNU. Growth, Employment and Redistribution: A Macro-Economic Strategy. Cape Town: 14 June1996c.
SA Government. White Paper on Industrial Development Strategy in the Republic of South Africa. Pretoria: Government Printers, 1985.
SA Government. White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation in the Republic of South Africa, WPG 87, Pretoria: Government Printers, 1987.
Newspaper and Weekly Reports
Business Day. Report of 5/1/96.
Business Day. Report of 5/3/96.
Business Day. Report of 1/4/96.
Business Day. Report of 24/4/96.
Business Day. Report of 16/9/96.
Business Day. Report of 9/4/97.
Business Day. Report of 12/4/97.
Business Day. Report of 22/4/97.
Business Day. Report of 19/8/97.
Business Day. Report of 20/8/97.
Business Day. Report of 6/7/99.
Business Day, Report of 13/3/00.
The Citizen. Report of 12/2/96.
City Press. Report of 10/12/95.
City Press. Report of 20/10/96.
Financial Mail. Report of 18/8/95.
Financial Mail. Report of 22/12/95.
Mail & Guardian. Report of 14/2 - 20/2/97.
Mail & Guardian. Report of 9/5 - 15/5/97.
New Nation. Report of 19-25/6/92.
Saturday Star. Report of 25/5/96.
Sowetan. Report of 30/1/96.
Sowetan. Report of 25/10/96.
The Star - Business Report. Report of 26/3/96.
The Star - Business Report. Report of 24/5/96.
The Star - Business Report. Report of 20/7/96.
The Star - Business Report. Report of 23/7/96.
The Star. Report of 2/1/96.
The Star. Report of 23/5/96.
The Star. Report of 28/6/96.
The Sunday Independent. Report of 26/5/96.
The Sunday Independent. Report of 4/5/97.
Sunday Times. Report of 26/5/96
Sunday Times. Report of 21/7/96.
Sunday Times - Business Times. Report of 16/6/96.
Sunday Times - Business Times. Report of 23/6/96.
Sunday Times. Report of 5/5/96.
Supplement to The Weekly Mail. Report of 3/3-4/4/90.
Michael J. Meyer is currently a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Development Studies, Faculty of Human and Social Sciences, University of North-West, Mmabatho, South Africa. His research interests comprise Regional co-operation and governance; rural local governance; privatization; international finance and globalization. His recent publications include: "Sapping South Africa's Strength" in BUA! August, Vol. 10, no. 2, 1997, (Open Society Foundation, Cape Town); "The International Moneylenders" in BUA! August, Vol. 10, no. 2, 1997, (Open Society Foundation, Cape Town); "Privatising South Africa by Dictum: A Review" in New Contree Vol. 42, November1997, pp. 63-80; "Report on the Study of the Development of Rural Local Government in the North-West Province" in Rural Local Government: Case Studies in Four Provinces of South Africa. Working Paper 73, Braamfontein: Land and Agricultural Policy Centre, January 1998; "Privatizatsiya v Yuzohnoi Afrike: kriticheskiy vzglyad (Privatisation in South Africa: A Critical Review)" in Shubin, V. (ed.) Yuzhaya Afrika: Ocherki sotsialno-ekonomicheskogo i politichaskogo razvitiya [South Africa: Essays on Socio-Economic and Political Developments]. Moscow: Vostochaya Literatura, Russian Academy of Sciences, 1999, pp. 168-179. (Published in Russian).
|Paper presented at the African Studies Association of Australasia & the Pacific 22nd Annual & International Conference (Perth, 1999)|
New African Perspectives: Africa, Australasia, & the Wider World at the end of the twentieth century