Johan Fourie's blog

I'd rather be a comma than a fullstop

Archive for the ‘General’ Category

An ode to optimism

leave a comment »

Stef

When I began my postgraduate studies – in 2004 as an Honours in Economics – I had to choose a supervisor for my mini-dissertation. I wanted to work on infrastructure investments, and approached prof Stef Coetzee, then affiliated to the Stellenbosch Business School, because of his expertise in development economics and his proximity to the world of business. He agreed – and I eventually produced a mini-dissertation twice the length of what it should have been.

Prof Coetzee was a wonderful guide for a naive but enthusiastic student. He certainly had the academic expertise to dismiss most of my ideas; he had completed a Masters degree at Stellenbosch University’s Economics department in 1973, the department where I now work, and a PhD at the University of the Free State in 1980. In the above picture, taken on 2 February 2018, Coetzee (on the left) appears with three former Stellenbosch classmates, prof Eon Smit, Hannes le Roux and prof Philip Mohr, men who have all had a profound impact on the South African academic landscape.

Yet prof Coetzee were never dismissive of my attempts to think boldly about the infrastructure that was required to put South Africa on a higher growth trajectory. Perhaps that is because he had experience of leading big teams and organisations, and thinking outside the box. He was a former rector of the University of the Free State, director of the Centre for Policy Analysis at the Development Bank of Southern Africa, and would later be CEO of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut.

But I’d like to think that it was also his personality to be open to new ideas, and optimistic about putting them into practice. Because of social media like Facebook, we could reconnect the last few years. Even when things were going badly with the economy, he would be optimistic that things would turn around.

He expressed these views in a chapter he wrote for a book I edited on what students should know when they go to university. Written a decade ago, but still relevant today, here is a short summary:

What do the above challenges and opportunities mean for us as South Africans? Probably the most important is that it leaves the younger generation with a future full of opportunities! The opportunities may be different from in the past, but it will definitely be exciting. The general expectation is that the economic growth of developing economies will in the near future be higher than that of developing economies and will also provide bigger investment opportunities.

Secondly it is also clear that exceptional leadership will be required in order to position South Africa as one of the foremost developing economies. Insight on South Africa within the world and the African context will be necessary to develop the correct policies and strategies.

Thirdly it appears that the opportunities will stretch across a wide spectrum and be multi-dimensional and multi-disciplinary. We are going to need scientists, academics, teachers, business people, farmers, doctors, nurses, and engineers to make South Africa a competitive country, but also one that can handle some the most important problems.

Fourthly new skills will be required in a fast-changing world: better flexibility, the ability to work in multi-cultural contexts, better language skills, excellent technological skills, innovation, creativity and the ability to work in teams on different continents, to name but a few.

Fifthly the future will place bigger demands on young people to achieve breakthroughs on political, economical, social, technological and environmental level. It will simultaneously provide exciting opportunities.

Prof Coetzee passed away on Saturday. Despite attempts to do so last year, we never had the chance to meet up again in person. His last few messages to me were, as always, optimistic, despite his illness and setbacks. He was optimistic about the South African economy, about my career, about the Springboks.

Now that I have my own students to supervise, I have a deeper appreciation of the role that supervisors can play in students’ lives. This, then, is a belated thank you to prof Stef Coetzee, my first supervisor who, unbeknownst to both of us, steered my own academic journey into a more optimistic future.

Advertisements

Written by Johan Fourie

October 29, 2018 at 08:00

A radical solution to land ownership

leave a comment »

Farmland

What if I could offer you the following three outcomes – 1) an increase in government revenue to the extent that a Basic Income Grant (BIG) can be afforded, 2) a substantial decline in wealth inequality, and 3) a sustainable solution to the land crisis – with just one policy intervention? Fantastic, you’d say, but naïve and, frankly, absurd. There is no policy that we know of that can tackle these immense societal challenges, all in one go.

Wait, I’m not done yet, I’d answer. This policy would make it much easier to build infrastructure, get rid of derelict buildings, would ramp up GDP per capita significantly, and would foster social cohesion.

Seriously? Don’t be ridiculous, you’re dreaming, you’d respond. And to do this, I’d continue, we’d need to do two things that seem almost directly opposed to one another. We need to expand markets. You might nod in agreement, something sensible for the first time. Oh, and we must abolish private property altogether.

This, in short, is the recommendation by two economists, Erik Posner and Glen Weyl, in their new book Radical Markets. Critics seem to agree that this is something worth discussing; Kenneth Rogoff calls this ‘perhaps the most ambitious attempt to rethink democracy and markets since Milton Friedman’.

Although their ideas have huge implications for democracy and immigration too, I will focus here on their first chapter, and probably the one most relevant to South Africa currently: property. They propose a Common Ownership Self-Assessed Tax (COST) on wealth. Property, they argue (like many economists before them), are inevitably monopolistic, and monopolies create inefficiencies in the market. Their COST aims to remove these allocative and investment inefficiencies by introducing a live auction for every asset in society.

So, how does it work? Let’s take Khulekani. His young family has just expanded, and so he wants to buy a new house. He would go to a website – let’s call it UmhlabaWethu.co.za – and open a sort-of Google Maps that will allow him to see every property in South Africa, valued by the owner of the property. He can then decide to buy any property, by just clicking on the property, at the price the owner has listed. The ‘right to exclude’, one of the central tenets of private ownership, is therefore waived in this new system. Every property owned by a company or individual (or government!) must be valued and listed.

So, what prevents owners from just making excessively high valuations, making Khulekani’s attempt at buying a house impossible? Tax. In this system, each owner will pay an annual tax on the self-assessed value of their property, thereby waiving the ‘right to use’, the second central tenet of private ownership. The authors explain: ‘In the popular image of private property, all benefits from use accrue to the owner. Under a COST, on the other hand, a fraction of this use value is revealed and transferred to the public through the tax; the higher the tax, the greater the fraction of use value transferred.’

In other words, all property in South Africa would be on a permanent auction, where the current user of the property determines the price (but pay for that price in tax). It’s almost like Uber, for property.

Imagine a private investor wants to build a high-speed monorail in Cape Town. To do this at present would be almost impossible, as owners of properties on the intended route would hold out for a high price, knowing that they have monopoly bargaining power. A COST would allow an investor to go online and buy up all the properties at the listed price, combine them, and start building the monorail. (Of course, they must also value that property, and pay tax. If another investor believes they can build a more profitable monorail, they might just buy-out the original investor’s right of use.)

Or imagine that the property tax is returned to citizens as a Basic Income Grant. By the authors’ rough calculations, every US citizen from a similar system could receive $20000 annually, which for most would be far less than they would be paying in tax. By their estimates, it would only be the richest 1% property owners that would be paying more than they receive – and often a lot more. This not only reduces inequality (by 4 Gini points, according to their estimates), but it also acts as a subsidy for the poorest.

In South Africa, COST tied to a BIG could do far more to alleviate poverty and address inequality than a policy like expropriation. Unproductive land would be a direct cost to all society: higher property values paying more tax mean that more can be redistributed to everyone. As the authors note, ‘a world in which everyone benefits from the prosperity of others would likely foster higher social trust, a factor essential to the smooth operation of the market economy’.

‘The sharing of wealth would be in accord with many commonsense notions of justice. Wealth is rarely created solely by the actions of the people who are paid for it under capitalism. They normally benefit from the help of friends, colleagues, neighbours, teachers, and many other people who are not fully compensated for their contributions. A COST would better proportion the distribution of wealth o the labour that created it.’

This is a radical proposal. It might have unintended consequences that we cannot currently imagine. That’s why the authors propose a piecemeal adoption of these policies. That is a sensible approach. Experimentation will be needed, perhaps even within one municipality first.

But the radical economic transformation that COST can accomplish is a lesson in how creative thinking – and perhaps a willingness to put away our ideological differences – can help find solutions to a problem that we had thought to be insurmountable.

*An edited version of this article originally appeared in the 13 September edition of finweek.

The big misconception about the free market

with one comment

South-African-Airways

There are many who view the free market with skepticism. Some are downright hostile towards it, proclaiming – erroneously so, given the empirical evidence of history – that capitalism hurts labour, the environment, or the poor, and is largely to blame for the evils of this world. Others grudgingly accept that capitalism is a better system than the alternatives, but look down, much like the nobility viewed merchants in Medieval times, on those in the business world as scammers and frauds. After the Steinhoff collapse, many commentators, often those schooled in the humanities, pointed to unethical behaviour of the ‘markets’ or the ‘business community’ or the ‘corporate sector’. In its crudest form, they blamed it all on ‘free market capitalism’ or, that insult of insults, ‘neoliberalism’.

But that interpretation is predicated on a fundamental misunderstanding of what ‘the free market’ actually is. A student pointed me recently to a ten-part television series by one of the leading economists of the twentieth century, Milton Friedman. Recorded in the 1980s but as relevant today as then, Free to Choose spells out Friedman’s belief that the ‘free market’ is preferable to the alternative of government intervention. The series is now freely available on YouTube.

After each episode, Friedman debates with invited guests, many who don’t share his views, about the pros and cons of the market. The moderator at some stage points out that both Friedman’s opponents, one from big business and the other from government, tends to agree that government intervention – say, to increase tariffs – is a good idea. How would he explain this? Friedman responds that it is perfectly rational that the two agree, even if for opposite reasons. ‘The two greatest enemies of free enterprise and freedom in the world, have been on the one hand the industrialists and on the other hand most of my academic colleagues who end up in government, and for opposite reasons.’ His academic colleagues, Friedman argues, want freedom for themselves. ‘They want free speech, they want freedom to write, they want freedom to publish, to do research. But they don’t want freedom for any of those awful businessmen.’

‘The businessmen are very different’, says Friedman. ‘Every businessman wants freedom for somebody else. But he wants special privileges for himself. He wants a tariff from congress.’

Entrepreneurs are in the business of making money. One way to do that is to produce a good or service that is better than the competition through efficiencies or strategy or innovation. So far, so good. Another way to do this is to eliminate the competition altogether. This can be done by getting government to impose a tariff on imports, or to get government to issue special licenses, or to convince government to issue regulation that protect your business from superior competition.

South Africa, of course, has a long history of this type of government intervention. The VOC that set up a refreshment station at the Cape was a company founded on monopoly trading rights. Paul Kruger’s ZAR government was built on a complex network of monopoly licenses with industrialists, and so, too, was the apartheid state. The scale of collusion between government and big business in more recent years ultimately coined a new term: state capture.

This is not free market capitalism. Put differently, it is not the type of capitalism that creates prosperity. Friedman made the same point in the 1980s: ‘It’s not proper to put the issue as industrialists versus government. On the contrary, one of the reasons why I’m in favour of less government, is because if you have more government, industrialists take it over. The two together form a coalition against the ordinary worker and the ordinary consumer. I think business is a wonderful institution, provided it must face competition in the marketplace, and it can’t get away with something except by producing a better product at a lower cost.’

Think of South Africa’s most concentrated sectors – telecommunications, electricity, healthcare, air travel. In each case, the government is either a significant player themselves, or they impose tight regulation. Much of this regulation is founded on good intentions, of course. Licenses often require a minimum safety standard; one wouldn’t want just anyone opening a hospital or flying an airplane. But most often, it is these well-intentioned regulations that strangle competition, creating oligopolistic sectors that favour a few big businesses.

South Africa’s Competition Commission is tasked with investigating and mitigating collusive business practices and other ways firms may abuse their market position. When a large firm acquires another, they need to file an application to the commission for approval. This prevents that one firm dominates a market, pushing up prices and hurting consumers.

But the Competition Commission can only do so much. In many cases brought before it, the South African government is an active player in the market – think SAA – or regulates the industry through other bodies – like the telecom spectrum ICASA controls. We cannot just rely on the Commission to ensure free competition: it requires a widespread acceptance in government that any regulation that impedes competition hurts both workers and consumers. The Minister of Energy signing the power purchase agreements for 27 mostly solar and wind projects – and thus encouraging competition in the market for energy generation – is an excellent step in the right direction. Our failing education or health systems are not so lucky; both suffer as a result of too little competition.

The big misconception about the free market is that ‘the market’ is often equated with ‘big business’. As Friedman notes, they are not the same thing. There is good reason for oligopolistic firms to cozy up to government: it is a great way to get rid of competitors. But over the last decade, South Africans have learnt the painful consequences of what happens when that system becomes entrenched. In contrast, a society that prioritises market competition is most likely to benefit the ordinary worker and the ordinary consumer. This is because competition fosters innovation. And innovation improves productivity, growth and living standards. That is, ultimately, the long road to economic freedom.

**An edited version of this article originally appeared in the 2 August edition of finweek.

Written by Johan Fourie

September 10, 2018 at 08:00

Why vegetarians are from Knysna and meat-eaters from the Karoo

with one comment

Boerewors2

Talking about factor endowments sounds like one of the most boring dinner conversation topics ever. The land/labour ratio of India, Europe or Africa does little to whet the appetite, and might actually be a polite way to signal that the evening is coming to an end. And yet, factor endowments explain far more about ourselves – from what we produce and trade, to how we marry and what we eat – than we would care to admit.

The ratio between a country’s endowment of land and labour – the land/labour ratio – is common to economic theory. One of the central theories of international trade, for example – the Heckscher Ohlin theory – uses factor endowments to explain what countries produce and trade. In its most succinct form, it says that a country will export goods that use its abundant factors intensively, and import goods that use its scarce factors intensively. Basically, if South Africa has a lot of land relative to Bangladesh, then we should produce things that use land intensively (like cattle), and export this to Bangladesh, while Bangladesh should produce things that uses its most abundant factor – in this case labour – most intensively (like clothes), and export this to South Africa. Both countries would win from the trade. This is standard Econ 101 stuff.

But increasingly the land/labour ratio is used to not only explain a country’s comparative advantage in production, but also explain the social and cultural differences between places. How we marry is one example. Take the lobola, the bride price that is traditional to most marriages in southern and eastern Africa. Why do Africans have a lobola, while Indians have a dowry? One answer: factor endowments. See, Sub-Saharan Africa traditionally had a lot of land relative to people. A high land-to-labour ratio meant that people were immensely valued for their ability to perform labour. Women, given their reproductive ability, was therefore of great value, and powerful men would claim multiple wives to ensure not only a long lineage but also a large workforce. That is also why polygamy is still popular amongst many African societies across the continent, and why indigenous slavery (raids on neighbouring tribes to poach their people rather than their land) was a feature of precolonial Africa.

By contrast, labour is abundant in India relative to land. There the institution of bride price never emerged; instead, it would be a dowry system, where the bride or bride’s family would pay (in property or money) for the right to marry the husband. This was to consolidate the most important asset – land, not labour – to ensure a successful lineage. Europeans, incidentally, had the same low land-to-labour ratio, which is why it is typically the wife’s family who pays for the wedding in European custom.

Factor endowments, surprisingly, can also say much about what we eat. In a series of tweets on 12 June, Sarah Taber, agricultural scientist and host of the Farm to Taber podcast, explained just how our eating habits are the result of the environment and endowments (the land/water ratio) around us. She starts by mentioning that many cultures have traditionally had low or no-meat diets. Think of the Ganges valley, the Nile valley, or the Amazon. What do these places have in common? It rains a lot. This matters because in such environments, plants that humans can consume tend to grow, like those with tender stems, leaves and fruit, or those with enlarged seeds or energy storing roots. The rest of the plant is basically useless to us.

On the other hand, many societies, like the Mongols, the Bedouin, the Inuit or the Masai, have evolved to consume almost only meat. This is because they live in places that are dry or very cold, where plants are either very sparse or very tough, and made entirely of things that humans cannot digest. These plants are almost entirely cellulose, having tough stalks, fibrous leaves, and so on. But cows, sheep, goats, horses and camels can consume these scrubs with 3- to 4-chambered stomachs that turn the cellulose into sugars.

Taber goes on to say that we neglect to factor in these differences when we debate vegetarianism, for example: ‘Failure to recognize the role of local environment in diet is a major oversight in the vegetarian community at large. Traditional vegetarian societies are trotted out to showcase that low/no-meat diets are possible. But it’s done without recognition as to why those particular societies did it, and others did not.’ The key, she says, is that we fail to recognize that for dry regions, the bottleneck in productivity is not land. It is water.

She then explains that a farm in a dry area, if used for cultivating vegetables, might produce enough food to feed 10x the number of people than it would if it was to produce meat. But, she shows, it would require a 1000x more water to produce those vegetables. ‘In places where there’s limited land and a surplus of water, it makes a lot of sense to optimize for land. So there, grow and eat crops. And in places where there’s a lot of land and limited water, it makes sense to optimize for water. So there, grow and eat ruminants (meat).’

‘It’s really interesting to me that the conversation around vegetarianism and the environment is so strongly centred on an assumption that every place in the world is on the limited land/surplus plan. You know what region that describes really well? Northwestern Europe. In many ways, viewing low/no-meat diets as the One True Sustainable Way is very much a vestige of colonialism. It found a way of farming that works really well in NW Europe, assumed it must be universal, and tries to apply it to places where it absolutely does not pencil out.’

The next time you run out of dinner conversation, a discussion about factor endowments may not be such a bad option after all.

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

Written by Johan Fourie

August 18, 2018 at 09:03

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.

Written by Johan Fourie

July 19, 2018 at 07:30

Join me in New York and Boston!

leave a comment »

Advert

On 26 July, the Economics department and LEAP will host a Stellenbosch alumni event in New York. I’ll give a short talk on ‘The Data Revolution in African Economic History’. Four days later, on Monday, 30 July, we’ll host another event in Boston. If you are in the neighbourhood and want to drop in to hear what we’re doing at LEAP, in the department and at Stellenbosch University, please send me a mail. In New York, we’ll meet at the ING offices and in Boston, we’ll be at the Residence Inn hotel in Cambridge.

The reason I’ll be in the US is to participate in the World Economic History Congress, which is hosted by MIT this year. I’m responsible for five papers (yes, I know, this is bad planning), so it will be a busy conference. The programme can be downloaded here. I hope to share some of the results of this research on this blog over the coming three months. (Also, I’m excited about plans for a new look blog. More about that later.)

After the WEHC2018, I’ll take a two-week break before going on a seminar tour in Gauteng, delivering papers at the universities of Pretoria (27 August), Wits (29 August), Johannesburg (30 August) and North-West, Potchefstroom (31 August). I’ll post more detail about those talks closer to the time.

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