Johan Fourie's blog

I'd rather be a comma than a fullstop

Archive for the ‘Economics’ Category

What universities can teach us about job incentives (or how to make South African researchers more productive)

with one comment

Freedom

Let there be little doubt: academics have the best jobs. When we teach, we get to fill young, smart minds with ideas we care about and believe in. When we undertake research, we get to explore these ideas further, understanding the world and how it works a little bit better. We work in tranquil settings (most of the time), surrounded by like-minded individuals in search of (the) truth, or, for those of us who shy away from people, books that do the same thing. Sometimes we get to travel to nice places to meet more like-minded people and share our ideas. Sometimes we even take sabbaticals, a time to reflect more deeply about the world and how it works without the need to do anything else. And best of all: even if we do not do most of these things, we have job security for life.

Universities are some of the oldest institutions. Although the role of professor has changed somewhat over the centuries – we used to have to earn our income when students paid to enter our classrooms! – the system of academic tenure, where an appointment is permanent and one cannot be fired except under extraordinary circumstances, has been around for more than a century. It is a decidedly different system than the private sector, where the biggest incentive for working hard is to not get fired.

While South African academics get tenure almost immediately after their appointment (it varies, but there is usually a probation period), ‘getting tenure’ is a big thing in the US. The first five years after appointment is a race to publish in top journals. If your tenure evaluation comes up, and you have not published well enough, you won’t get it, and you will have to move somewhere else, or quit academe. Once you get tenure, though, all the incentives to publish are removed; continued research depends entirely on the goals and objectives you set for yourself.

Here are two very different systems that are perfect for analysis. In the first, the incentives are clear: publish or perish. In the second, there are no external incentive like the overt threat to job security. Which of the two systems produce the best results?

Before answering this question, it is perhaps useful to ask why the system of academic tenure was introduced in the first place. There were mainly two reasons. First, tenure provides academic and intellectual freedom to pursue new avenues of inquiry. Second, it provides a sufficient degree of economic security to make the profession attractive. It is the first of these – the unencumbered pursuit of truth – that is still upheld as the indisputable defense for tenure.

Does this defense stand up to empirical support? Three economists, Jonathan Brogaard, Joseph Engelberg and Edward van Wesep, used their own profession to find out. In a paper published in the Winter 2018 issue of the Journal of Economic Perspectives, they measure the research output of almost a thousand academic economists in the five years before tenure and the ten years after. They not only measure the quantity of output, but also the quality. They create two measures: ‘home runs’ are papers that are highly cited (in the top 10% of papers published in the same year) and ‘bombs’ are poor-performing (papers in the bottom 10% of citations that year).

Their results are emphatic: publication and home run rates rise to tenure, peaking in the year a researcher comes up for tenure and a researcher’s first year as tenured faculty, but then fall off a cliff, with publication and home run rates 15% and 35% lower in years 2 to 10 after tenure. Most surprisingly, bomb rates, publishing papers that get very few citations, increase by 35% after tenure.

The authors consider various reasons that might explain this drop in productivity and success. Perhaps this is just a ‘time since PhD’ effect, in that older people are less productive, but the authors find no evidence to support this. Perhaps it is the rise in service, teaching and other nonacademic obligations post-tenure, but that would not explain, for example, why researchers publish more bomb-papers. Perhaps tenure encourages researchers to take bigger risks and branch out into new, explored areas of research. The authors measure this by looking at where the authors publish, and find no difference in the number or uniqueness of co-authors or journals. Perhaps the averages mask elite researchers’ performances. But even if the authors only limit their analysis to the top US universities, the results hold true. Perhaps it takes time for truly novel research to gain traction. But when the authors limit the sample to papers with 20 year lags, the results stay the same.

What emerges from their analysis is that tenure is bad for research productivity. This is not necessarily to say that the tenure-system is bad: had it not been there, the number and quality of PhD students that aim for academic positions would probably have been lower. The possibility of future economic security is the incentive that really matters in drawing the sharpest minds into the field.

But it does suggest two things. On a practical level, giving tenure too early may be a bad thing. The South African system almost assumes tenure at the time of appointment; I don’t know anyone that has not received a permanent appointment for failure to publish. By extending the timing of tenure to at least five years, and making ‘not getting tenure’ a realistic threat, the South African government can get more research for their proverbial buck. At a more general level, the study clearly shows how important incentives are. A world where permanent employment is guaranteed with no performance appraisals is a world where output falls and innovation dies. Even academic economists sometimes need reminding of that.

**An edited version of this article originally appeared in the 21 June edition of finweek.

Advertisements

Written by Johan Fourie

July 19, 2018 at 07:30

Cities are the future

leave a comment »

MinasRuines

Photo by Marcia Valle

Brazil is a fascinating country to travel to as a South African. It is vibrant, slightly chaotic and mesmerizing all in one, and, beyond the airports and major tourist areas, quite a challenge for someone with no knowledge of Portuguese. I was invited to a rural university town in the state of Minas Gerais in May to deliver a series of talks. From the airport in Belo Horizonte my driver, hell bent on showing off his Grand Prix skills, took me on a five-hour rollercoaster ride through the hilly countryside. What was formerly a coffee and sugar plantations (and mining) region, were now mostly vacant, most of the land reclaimed by veld and forests. The language barrier prevented me from inquiring in detail what was happening, but from what I could gather, his answer was simple: People are moving to the cities. They want better lives.

Rapid migration to cities is a global phenomenon. People ‘vote with their feet’ for better economic opportunities, and in South Africa, as in Brazil, they vote for the bright lights of the cities. Poverty in South Africa is largely a rural phenomenon. Yes, townships on the periphery of cities house many poor residents, but these residents have better lives than those in the former homelands many of them come from. The search for a better life for them and their children is why they moved in the first place.

Those of us with a romantic view of life in the countryside may think that this flood to the cities can be reversed by, for example, policies that would expand land access or improve rural living standards. But lack of land is not the reason people migrate to cities in large numbers, not in South Africa and also not in Europe, China or Brazil. In several European countries, rural areas have been abandoned, taken over by forests (and returning wildlife). The European policy-makers have done their best to prevent this, by offering expensive agricultural subsidies to its farmers (at the cost of farmers in Latin America, India and Africa), but this has just slowed the inevitable. Farms are now being bought up by rich city-folk that want weekend getaways – cities are what creates wealth, the countryside is for spending it. In China, because of the disastrous policies of Mao, land was equally divided amongst the citizens. Yet with the onset of modern economic growth in China since the 1980s, millions of families have relocated to the cities, first to fill jobs in low-skilled, labour-intensive sectors, but as the economy has grown and wages have increased, to more skill-intensive sectors. Their children will attain much higher living standards than their parents and grandparents could ever dream of. Despite a history of severe inequality, the story is no different in Brazil. Rich and poor move to cities, because that is where their living standards are most likely to improve.

Trying to slow down urbanization is futile; in fact, it is likely to do more harm than good. Cities are where people prosper: they have access to employment opportunities, better schools and clinics, electricity, water and sanitation and access to a greater variety of social institutions and entertainment, like churches and sport clubs. But because cities are so attractive, that also results in higher levels of inequality, as new poor migrants from the countryside continually fill the gaps left by those that were formerly poor but have worked their way up. Inequality in cities should thus be interpreted with caution: it is a consequence, rather than a break, on progress. The poor care less about the Gini coefficient and much more about the possibility of social mobility – the possibility to escape poverty.

Evidence of how migrants’ living standards improve is provided in a new paper by Ivan Turok and Justin Visagie. They track rural migrants to South African cities between 2008 and 2014. Before their move to the city, 80% of these migrants were living below the poverty line. Six years later, they results show, ‘the level of income poverty for these migrants (now living in an urban environment) had more than halved to below 35%. Meanwhile, the poverty level for individuals who remained in the countryside stayed very high at 70%.’

It is for this reason that some economists are proposing a somewhat contentious poverty-alleviating policy: subsidies to help those in rural areas to migrate to cities. A new paper by David Lagakos, Ahmed Mobarak and Michael Waugh use an experimental programme of migration subsidies in Bangladesh to calculate the effect on migrant welfare. They find that for the poorest households, the welfare gains from migration subsidies are higher than unconditional cash transfers or a rural workfare program costing the same total amount. ‘This suggests that conditional migration transfers may be a useful way to raise the welfare of poor rural households in the developing world.’

The influx of migrants are and will continue to be difficult for cities, already suffering backlogs and scarce resources, to manage. But there are ways to support them. National and provincial governments can do more to give cities control over land and infrastructure they own, like Metrorail. Greater private sector involvement can speed the provision of basic services, notably in housing and internet connections. Political competition, like what has happened in Johannesburg, Pretoria and Port Elizabeth, will help to push out bureaucratic incompetence (and corruption) and promote service delivery.

Urbanisation is the key to future prosperity, in South Africa, Brazil and elsewhere. Any policy to keep people in rural areas amounts to a policy to keep them poor. While city governments are battling to tackle existing infrastructure backlogs, they should recognise that they offer the best hope for people to escape poverty.

**An edited version of this article originally appeared in the 7 June edition of finweek.

Written by Johan Fourie

June 30, 2018 at 06:54

One policy to rule them all

with 2 comments

LotR

The holy grail for development economists is to identify an affordable policy intervention that will help the poorest escape poverty. We know that living a longer and better life is correlated with many things: higher income from having a job, living in a house with clean water and sanitation, and access to better schools and health facilities, to name a few. But the trouble comes when we try to write policy to improve these things: which investment, given limited resources and political constraints, will most benefit children from poor households? And why?

A new paper* published in the American Economic Review last month by a team of economists and psychologists offers an answer. It uses a longitudinal unconditional cash transfer programme – the Great Smoky Mountains Study in North Carolina – to examine how a cash boost for parents affected children’s outcomes. Children from 11 counties were interviewed annually from age 9 until the age of 16. Their parents were interviewed at the same time. One subsection of these children are American Indians. These American Indian families began to receive, five years after the first survey, direct cash transfers from the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians tribal government as a result of a new casino that came into operation. The cash transfers were provided to all adult citizens of the tribe, regardless of their employment conditions, marital status, or the presence of young children. This is basically equivalent to a universal Basic Income Grant, a policy that is gaining popularity in academic circles.

Because the surveys were initially undertaken for the purpose of collecting information about behavioural and mental health, the authors have a lot of information about the children’s emotional and behavioural well-being at their disposal. Most importantly, the surveys began before the introduction of the unconditional cash transfer, so they can compare the mental health conditions of children in households who receive the transfer to those in households who never received it. This ‘natural experiment’ is the closest thing economists get to a laboratory experiment.

The results are remarkable. They show that the increase in unconditional household income improves child personality traits, emotional well-being and behavioural health. Because of the unique nature of their data, they can demonstrate that these improvements are for the same child using the same measures over time. The formation of positive personality traits, like conscientiousness (individuals who do your duties diligently and thoroughly) and agreeableness (individuals who are kind, sympathetic and cooperative), is ‘crucial in determining long-term socioeconomic standing and may also have strong effects on long-term health, educational attainment, and economic outcomes’. We know from earlier research that mental health conditions, such as attention deficit disorder, are more likely to affect poorer children. The authors concur: ‘We find that the children that start out with the most severe personality or behavioral deficits are the ones who exhibit the greatest improvements.’ A universal cash injection, like a Basic Income Grant, is likely to have the largest impact on children from the poorest households, improving personality traits and health outcomes even during their teenage years.

Such improvements in personality will have large repercussions in adulthood. A large literature now shows that such traits are strong predictors of finding a job, living in a good neighbourhood and living a longer and healthier life.

Most remarkably, because the surveys also included questions about parental health, the authors could discuss potential mechanisms through which additional household income affects child personality traits. They find that the unconditional cash transfers resulted in ‘an improvement in parental mental health, the relationship between parents, and the relationship between the parents and children in the treated households’. A Basic Income Grant may improve long-run child outcomes via the improvement in parental behaviors, stress-reduction, and improvements in decision making in the household.

A Big Income Grant is an expensive policy. A back of the envelope calculation reveals that, with 56 million South Africans, a Basic Income Grant of R758 per month – what is classified as the lower-bound poverty line by StatsSA – will require R509.4 billion annually. This is a lot of money, but not impossible to find. We already spend R193.4 million on social protection, and another R66 million on social security. We pay R180 million on debt servicing, which can be drastically reduced if we sell government-owned assets and repay our debt. A Basic Income Grant will also help reduce the reliance on free government services, such as fee-free schools, and increase VAT income as consumption increases.

A Basic Income Grant not only eliminates extreme poverty with the stroke of a pen, but as the Great Smoky Mountains Study show, it can drastically improve the emotional well-being and behavioural health of both children and parents in our poorest communities, with massive implications for their futures and that of South Africa. If we are serious about addressing the stark inequalities in our country, inequalities that ultimately help explain societal challenges like hopelessness, desperation, crime, violence, and even populism, then a Basic Income Grant is a policy we can no longer afford to ignore.

*Akee, Randall, William Copeland, E. Jane Costello, and Emilia Simeonova. 2018. “How Does Household Income Affect Child Personality Traits and Behaviors?” American Economic Review108 (3): 775-827.

**An edited version of this article originally appeared in the 10 May edition of finweek.

Written by Johan Fourie

June 19, 2018 at 08:15

Land expropriation: learning from the Chinese

with 2 comments

GreatLeapForward.jpg

The complexity of the debate about land expropriation without compensation can ultimately be summarized into two questions: Should land be expropriated without compensation? And, if so, who should own the expropriated land? While much media attention has focused on the first, with the focus often on how such a policy will scare off foreign investment, it is the answer to the second, ultimately, that will determine the success of any attempt at redress and wealth creation.

The two proponents of a policy of land expropriation without compensation in South Africa – the ANC and the EFF – stand on very different sides with regards to answering the second question: the ANC has made it clear that ownership should be in private hands, while the EFF has forcefully and repeatedly made the case that the state should be the custodian of all land. Their policy would see the state expropriate all private farm land and lease the land ‘equally’ to the people of South Africa. Dali Mpofu, National Chairperson of the EFF and a respected advocate, has defended this stance by referring to China in a 2017 tweet: ‘Chinese land is owned … by the state and it has registered the highest consistent economic growth in the world!’

Mpofu’s example is an interesting one, and worth exploring. Indeed, Chinese economic growth over the last four decades has been a historically unprecedented 8% per year. But Mpofu would do well to note that this growth was not a consequence of agriculture. Between 1990 and 2016, the share of agriculture in GDP has fallen dramatically from 26.5% to 8.5%. This was associated with massive urbanization; in 2016, 57.4% of the total population lived in urban areas, a dramatic increase from 26% in 1990. Far fewer people now live off the land, and those that have moved to the (often new) cities, are remarkably better off.

This is because land is not the valuable commodity it once was in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. As a way to empower people, land is probably the least useful asset nowadays, because it requires significant investment in physical and human capital to make it productive. Even then, the most valuable assets today are intangible – skills, intellectual property rights, data. In the twentieth century, agriculture could only thrive with significant state intervention in the form of marketing councils, favourable tariffs and other measures, measures that came at the cost of the South African consumer. In the 21st century economy, living off the land – without significant capital investment – will limit the ability of those that most need access to good education and health services and opportunities for social mobility that are found in cities.

This is even more true if the expropriated land is owned by the state. Let us return to Mpofu’s country of choice: China. Between 1955 and 1957, 96% of China’s 550 million peasants were dispossessed of their private property rights. This was the largest movement from private to communal property rights in history. As Shuo Chen and Xiaohuan Lan show in a 2017 paper published in the American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, the results of this process of land dispossession was devastating for the peasants, and the Chinese economy. The authors use data of 1600 counties that launched the movement in different years, and find that in the year of the dispossession, the number of cattle declined by 12 to 15%. In total, this was a loss of almost 10 million head of cattle. Why? Because people started killing their own animals to keep the meat and hides as soon as they released that they will lose the property rights to the use of those animals, and they did not trust the state to be able to safeguard what used to be theirs. This loss also affected grain output, which fell by 7%. We now know that Mao was not discouraged by this initial production shock. No, he doubled down. This initial process of land dispossession set the stage for the Great Leap Forward movement of 1958, which led to the worst famine in human history that killed an estimated 30 million people.

China’s process of collectivization should be the example that Mpofu and the EFF leadership study. If they want more evidence of how collectivization collapses an economy, they need look no further than Tanzania’s Ujamaa and Operation Vijiji, a much understudied but enlightening experience. Or ask our Zimbabwean neighbours about their land reform programme. As Tawanda Chingozha, a PhD student in the Department of Economics at Stellenbosch University, shows using sophisticated satellite imaging technology, Zimbabwe’s land reform programme caused a significant reduction in both the quantity and quality of crops harvested, and not only on formerly white commercial farms. The empirical evidence against state-owned land ownership is unequivocal.

Land is an emotive issue because the memories of dispossession, forced removals, and apartheid segregation remain vivid for many. Others are simply unhappy with the slow process of economic progress in the last decade, and see in land a source of safety and security.

But if land is expropriated and private property removed, the hope of economic progress will be nothing more than a mirage. We have smart people in South Africa. Surely we can find a way of redress that actually empowers people – and won’t replicate our disastrous past policies that subjugated the poorest to a life of poverty on the periphery of progress?

*An edited version of this article originally appeared in the 26 April edition of finweek.

The stories we do not tell

with 2 comments

Abel2018b

One of my favourite scenes in Love, Actually is right at the beginning of the movie. The setting is an airport arrivals terminal. As travelers arrive through the gates, they are welcomed by family and friends, smiling, laughing, hugging and kissing. Whenever I have to pick someone up at the international terminal, I do my best to arrive early, and to witness the joy of family and friend reunions.

I would contest that there is another setting where you’re guaranteed to be uplifted. Graduation ceremonies. I was fortunate to attend one of these at the end of March where hundreds of students received their degrees, with thousands of friends and family watching on. Each applause and ululation tells a story, stories often coupled with hardship, sacrifice and perseverance but also with hope, faith and, ultimately, success. There are few things better to see than a father or mother, proud and captivated as their son or daughter walks across the stage, holding back the tears.

Several of my own Economics students graduated too, each with their own stories. Thokozire Gausi graduated with an Honours degree. She is from Malawi and part of a network of students that self-finance their studies in South Africa, often with very little institutional support. Masters-degree graduate Omphile Ramela, who grew up in Soweto, wrote his dissertation while playing professional cricket for the Cape Cobras and, now, the Highveld Lions, and while balancing the demands of a young family. Abel Gwaindepi received his PhD in Economics. He grew up in Zimbabwe, where his father worked in the sugarcane plantations of Anglo-American. Abel has 16 siblings, many of whom he had to support with his meagre scholarships through an undergrad at Fort Hare, a postgraduate at Rhodes and, ultimately, a PhD at Stellenbosch. It is difficult to imagine what that moment of graduation must have felt like for Abel and the Gwaindepi family.

At the same ceremony, both Patrice Motsepe and Jannie Mouton received honorary doctorates, and had the chance to say a few short words. Motsepe noted South Africa’s amazing people, and our duty to ensure that each has the opportunity to live a life of dignity and prosperity. We underestimate our own abilities, Motsepe said, to make a success of South Africa. Mouton highlighted the wealth of opportunities in the country. Focus, he said, on the opportunities instead of being an expert on the problems. ‘Build a business, employ people, pay taxes – contribute.’

Negativity pervades our society, and can be incredibly debilitating. A few minutes on Twitter and you’re bound to find discussions that turn into slurs and slanders which will only end in ignorance and intolerance. But – and this I repeat to myself and my students frequently – Twitter is not the real world. Despite all the negativity that surrounds us, there is one undeniable truth: there has never been a better time to be human than in 2018.

The story we do not tell often enough – and one that still surprises each new cohort of students I teach – is that life is getting better. Yes, we have tremendous challenges in South Africa, in Africa and globally, but we are making good progress to tackling these head-on. Six of the ten fastest growing economies in 2018 will be in Africa. But it is not only incomes that are improving. Steven Pinker, in the first few chapters of his new book, Enlightenment Now, provides a wonderful summary of the trends in health, happiness, and living standards, as well as inequality, the environment, safety and democracy. In each case, the evidence suggests that we live in a much better world than our parents and grandparents.

This good story did not just happen for no reason. It is humankind’s ability to use the resources of nature and transform them into food, clothing and shelter, through ever-increasing understanding of science, our complex technologies and sophisticated institutions, that have allowed us to build a more prosperous world. I really like the way Pinker explains this:

Poverty needs no explanation. In a world governed by entropy and evolution, it is the default state of humankind. Matter does not arrange itself into shelter or clothing, and living things do everything they can to avoid becoming our food. As Adam Smith pointed out, what needs to be explained is wealth. Yet even today, when few people believe that accidents or diseases have perpetrators, discussions of poverty consist mostly of arguments about whom to blame for it.

That our world is getting better should not mean that we can get complacent. As we’ve seen in several countries around the world, places like Syria, Venezuela and Zimbabwe, when things fall apart, living standards quickly revert back to poverty and chaos. As long as we understand that investment in better knowledge about how the world works lies at the heart of our story – in other words, investing in innovation, science and technology – such an outcome is unlikely for South Africa. The worrying thing about our recent budget is that the allocation towards this category will grow at less than the inflation rate. Our politicians seem to not understand that our wealth is dependent not on connections, mineral resources or land. Instead, it is the result of innovation-led improvements in productivity that explains the huge progress of the last two centuries.

Motsepe and Mouton are both correct: we have amazing people and amazing opportunities. But we will only be able to tell a good story if we invest in those amazing people – like Thoko, Omphile and Abel – to use their knowledge and skills to take advantage of those opportunities.

*An edited version of this article originally appeared in the 12 April edition of finweek.

The unintended consequences of good intentions

with one comment

party

We all hope to live long, healthy lives. And we want that for other people too. So when we have medical breakthroughs that allow us to alleviate the suffering of others, almost all of us would agree that it should be rolled out to those needing it most.

Opioid abuse kills 42000 Americans annually. Opioids are a class of drugs usually prescribed to treat pain, but many patients develop addictions that result in the illegal use of prescription drugs or even cheaper alternatives, like herion. Opioid abuse has increased steadily over the last decade to now constitute more than two-thirds of all drug overdose deaths. How to stop and reverse this rising trend has been the subject of debate amongst public health officials and policymakers for some time.

One option, preferred by most US health experts, is Naloxone. Naloxone is a drug that can reverse the effects of an opioid overdose if administered quickly. In short: it can save many lives if it is easily accessible. With this knowledge, many US states began to pass laws that facilitated the widespread distribution and use of Naloxone. Surely this policy would save thousands of American lives?

Unfortunately and surprisingly, it had the opposite effect. This is the astounding conclusions of a new study by Jennifer Doleac of the University of Virginia and Anita Mukherjee of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The two economists find that broadening Naloxone access had ‘no reduction in opioid-related mortality’.  Why? Because the availability of Naloxone encouraged riskier behaviour; access to Naloxone increased the use and abuse of opioids. Doleac and Mukherjee show, for example, that where Naloxone became available, it was followed by a clear increase in opioid-related emergency room visits and more opioid-related theft. In some places, like the Midwest, there was even an increase in opioid-related deaths, as abuse increased because people were comforted by the knowledge that there is a way out. A policy with fundamentally good intentions had perverse outcomes.

This is a classic example of the dilemma that policymakers face on a daily basis. Good intentions do not equate to good policy. Differently put, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. What is needed is an understanding that humans react to incentives, and that if the incentives change, so will their behaviour.

Sport is a great example of how policies can have undesired consequences. Increase the points awarded for a try to encourage more running rugby? Maybe it works, but it is more likely that it will encourage foul play because a penalty is now a relatively less expensive mistake. Design cricket helmets to make batsmen safe from bouncers? Possibly, but it is equally likely that fewer batsmen now learn to play the bouncer well, and are thus hit on the head more often (obviously with less severe consequences). Give three log points for a win in a soccer championship instead of two to encourage more attacking play? Expect more defensive home games and draws as teams want to avoid ‘losing three points at home’. These examples may be somewhat facetious, but they show just how difficult it is to regulate human behaviour.

One policy that is likely to have serious ramifications for South Africans is the proposed Liquor Amendment Bill, which will increase the minimum drinking age from 18 to 21 years. The goal, ostensibly, is to reduce the number of alcohol-related deaths of teenagers, both from overconsumption and from the associated violence and car accidents. There is no doubt of the good intentions here. Alcohol abuse can have deadly consequences. Limiting the drinking age to 21 seems like a rational way to reduce consumption amongst a group of young people that is most at risk. What could go wrong?

The answer is: we don’t really know. Would young adults be happy teetotallers for three years, or would they find alternative means of enjoying the products of Bacchus? Are the alternatives – hiding consumption from adult supervision, or consuming unregulated drinks bought on the black market – not potentially worse?

Perhaps we can find examples elsewhere. Empirical evidence in the US seems to suggest that increasing the minimum drinking age reduced car accidents by around five percent. That would be great, of course, although those results rely on strict enforcement capabilities and supporting institutions. Would violence, particularly against woman, cease? Perhaps it would, but the new bill might also shift drinking away from bars and public places and into the home, with even worse outcomes.

Any policy, regardless of its intentions, has consequences. Some are obvious to see, but often our good intentions have undesired or even perverse outcomes that nullify or even contradict the initial aims. We can avoid the worst of these by carefully considering the alternatives, through modelling behaviour and empirical testing (of similar policy experiments). But often the bad news is that, despite our best intentions, humans are best left to their own devices.

*An edited version of this article originally first appeared in the 29 March edition of finweek

Written by Johan Fourie

May 7, 2018 at 10:00

A moment to remake South Africa

with 2 comments

Cyril

At the dawn of independence, it fell on the first generation of African leaders to choose a new economic paradigm to deliver economic freedom to their people. In the Cold War between capitalism and communism, these African leaders almost unilaterally preferred a third option – ‘African socialism’ – a potpourri of policies built on the ethic of egalitarianism grounded in African history and culture.

At the second annual LEAP Lecture at Stellenbosch University in October 2017, Emmanuel Akyeampong, professor of African history at Harvard University, returned to the topic of ‘African socialism’ following independence, and its consequences for the continent. In countries as diverse as Ghana, Tanzania, Senegal and Guinea, he notes, the new policies were, ultimately, attempts to industrialise, to break away from the agriculture-based systems of the colonial economies.

In Kwame Nkrumah’s Ghana, for example, plans were drawn up for massive infrastructure investments. Sadly, many of these projects never got off the ground, or were only finished much later. In one project, for example, Nkrumah convinced the Russians to build a railway from Kumasi to Ouagadougou, the capital of Burkino Faso, but the railway was never completed.

The most extreme version of ‘African socialism’ was Julius Nyerere’s umajaa (villagization) campaign in Tanzania in 1967. This essentially meant the collectivization of all forms of productive capacity, notably in agriculture; Tanzanians, Nyerere believed, must learn to free themselves from dependence on European powers by becoming self-reliant.

Nyerere’s bold vision, and those of his contemporaries, failed miserably. Says Akyeampong: “The 1980s put paid to the concept and the vision, as steep economic decline resulted in what has been called Africa’s ‘lost decade’; the most notable architect of African socialism, Nyerere, conceded that his attempt at ujamaa had failed and stepped down from power in 1985; and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 marked the triumph and ascendancy of capitalism.”

But Akyeampong is less interested in the reasons for their failures than in the boldness of their visions.  “It is the vision of bold and broad transformative change that I find admirable and worthy of emulation, and the desire to lift entire populations out of poverty and give them a decent life.” This optimism and boldness was not limited to the African leaders themselves; even the World Bank, soon after independence, remarked: ‘For most of Africa, the economic future before the end of the century can be bright’.

As I listened to Cyril Ramaphosa deliver his first State of the Nation address, I was reminded of that special moment in time when monumental change seemed possible. The general mood seems to have lifted after Jacob Zuma’s departure. Is this another moment when the trajectory of history seems to shift gear?

We should, of course, learn from history. Utopian visions of the future can easily become a justification for social engineering. While a powerful state can quickly transform society, it can do so at the cost of freedom. This is not the route I have in mind. Instead, this opportune moment can be used to redefine the social contract, to implement a nuanced set of social democratic policies with two explicit aims: economic security and economic freedom. In short, we want to live in a just and prosperous society.

How do we achieve that? Security requires that people have a basic standard of living. One policy proposal that has attracted a lot of interest is the basic income grant, a small monthly grant (of say R752, the lower-bound poverty line) to every South Africa, regardless of income. This would replace the child support grant. Every person with an ID document will be required to open a bank account (perhaps with a new state deposit bank), which will be linked to their SARS account. To partially fund this, VAT will increase. A tax on consumption means we incentivise savings and investment, the heart of creating economic prosperity.

There are many such policy options. State ownership of some assets, like aeroplanes and television stations, make little sense. These can be sold to pay off national debt and lower personal income taxes. Government can also save by reducing the number and size of departments and keeping the increases in the public wage bill to less than inflation.

As South African cities have some of the longest transit times in the world, infrastructure investment in urban areas – notably in public transport and housing – needs urgent attention. Water and electricity can benefit from innovations like desalination and solar panels. Broadband access can be expanded through incentive programmes.

A prosperous society requires an educated populace and work for them. Investing in early childhood development is key to eradicate large discrepancies that already exist when kids arrive at school. Incorporating the private sector in secondary and tertiary education, perhaps through a voucher system, is one way to not only improve the quantity of seats in class, but also provide opportunities for entrepreneurs at the local level. We should also welcome immigrants with skills with open arms; they not only bring much-needed expertise, but they often build new businesses that create jobs and improve living standards.

Cyril Ramaphosa has a window of opportunity in the first few months of his tenure. He can dare to be bold, and should do so. Says Akyeampong: “We need the bold and transformative vision of the likes of Nyerere and Nkrumah to ensure that come 2050 we do not find ourselves in the same predicament as on the eve of independence, when our new leaders, coming out of decades of repressive colonial economic policies, were faced with what appeared to be insurmountable challenges.” What will economic historians, fifty years from now, say about Ramaphosa’s moment to remake South Africa?

*An edited version of this article originally first appeared in the 15 March edition of finweek