Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Vol. 6| No. 2 | July 2016
Journal of
Global Analysis
A Review of Public and Private Investment in South Africa
By Garikai Makuyana* & Prof. Nicholas M. Odhiambo**
Abstract
The paper aims to put the limelight on the growth dynamics of public and private investment in South Africa from the apartheid period through to 2012. With the adopted inward-looking growth policy during the apartheid, massive economic infrastructure public investment stimulated private investment. Growth buoyancy of private investment continued with the implementation of the market system in 1994, complemented by the core infrastructure growth. While the South African investment climate is considered to be competitive, at least in comparison to other African economies, there are areas that still need further improvement to unlock higher investment growth potential that includes non-all-inclusive infrastructure.
Keywords: South Africa; Apartheid; Public Investment; Private Investment; State Owned Enterprises; Market System; Economic Growth
* Garikai Makuyana (Corresponding Author) PhD(Economics) Candidate, Department of Economics, University of South Africa, Pretoria Email: [email protected].
** Prof Nicholas M. Odhiambo, Department of Economics, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa, Email: [email protected].
Journal of Global Analysis
Vol. 6 | No. 2
July 2016
www.cesran.org
Introduction
The debate in the policy and academic circles on the relative roles of public and private investment in the economic growth process particularly of developing economies is still ongoing. The focus of the debate is centred on two main areas, namely: (i) whether growth in public investment stimulates or retards private investment; and (ii) whether public investment promotes long-run economic growth more than an equivalent amount of private investment does.
However, there seems to be a general consensus that, firstly, public investment crowds in private investment when it is confined to economic and social infrastructure that guarantee the full functioning of the market system such as in health, education, energy and transport and communications.1 This underscores the need for high public sector investment in developing economies where it is believed to be in short supply. Secondly, it crowds out private investment when it is debt-financed in the presence of scarce resources and when it produces goods and services that pose direct competition with the private sector output.2
Given the influence of these different channels of public investment on private investment, the resultant effect on economic growth depends on which channel dominates, and it is an empirical issue. If the positive effect of a public investment increase dominates the negative effect of reduced private investment, the economic growth rate will accelerate. However, if the opposite arises, economic growth will retard. Thus, for policy makers in developing countries concerned with sustained high economic growth rates, it is not only growing the aggregate level of investment that matters, but also how it is split between public and private component.3
In the South African economy scenario, the relationship between public and private investment and their relative effect on economic growth can be noted from the apartheid period (1948-1994). Adopting the inward-looking growth strategy, public investment rose sharply during the period through State enterprises in energy, transport, communication and defence. This provided an impetus to private investment growth which was high, as were the economic growth rates during the 1960s and 1970s.4 However, the intensification of international economic sanctions during the 1980s against the apartheid regime marked the end of a high State economic presence. Public capital formation decelerated and further reduced with the adoption of the market reforms at the end of 1980.5
On the attainment of independence in 1994, the new government continued to implement the market reforms that were initiated by its predecessor. This resulted in the privatisation of the commercial activities of State enterprises and the restructuring of the core infrastructure entities to reflect the private sector’s commercial spirit. The economic growth rates that followed were higher relative to the low levels in the 1980s.6
To build a base for the creation of the developmental State agenda, the period 2004 to 2012 was marked by the re-emergence of the State in economic activities, which were mainly in economic infrastructure that complement private investment growth.7 Whilst the resulting public investment growth was high, overly so, private investment maintained dominance in
142
A Review of Public and Private Investment in South Africa
Journal
of
Global
Analysis
A
Rev
iew
of
Pu
blic
an
d P
riva
te In
vest
me
nt
in S
ou
th A
fric
a
all economic activities. This arrangement has been credited for the high and accelerating economic growth in South Africa.
Despite the crucial roles played by both public and private investment in shaping the economic growth process in South Africa, research work on their growth evolution and the link that may exist between them is somewhat sparse.8 This paper, therefore, aims to put the South African economy in the limelight by documenting the growth dynamics of public and private investment from the 1950s through to 2012.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows: Section 2 covers the evolution of public investment in South Africa, while section 3 discusses the emergence and growth of private investment. Section 4 tracks the growth trends of both public and private investment in response to economic reforms, which is followed by the concluding section.
The Evolution of Public Investment in South Africa
The volution of public investment in South Africa can be traced back to the apartheid era. During this period, State investment in core infrastructural activities was taken as a catalyst to the development of an economy that was based on resources (mining and agriculture), and later on resource processing. The construction of ports and railways became one of the first key infrastructure investments that were important to sustain the developing industrial process. This resulted in the State formation of the South African Rail and Harbours (SAR&H), in 1916.9
Initially, the discovery of diamonds in 1867 in Kimberley and later, gold on the Witwatersrand in 1886 played important role in the genesis of public investment in South Africa which was predominantly centred on railway line construction.10
Between 1860 and 1867, the colonial government, using proceeds from the diamond mines, invested in railway lines which linked Cape Town and Durban. Public investment in railway lines continued after this, linking different parts of South Africa. It grew at an average rate of 5.7% between 1885 and 1910.11
Prior to the 1916 formation of SAR&H, the State invested in core communications facilities in 1910, which were overseen by the Department of Ports and Telegraphs. The State, through this department, formed enterprises that were responsible for the development of telephony, broadcasting, postal and other related infrastructure.12
Moreover, to provide a solid foundation for the enhancement of the processing of the national resources, a number of State-owned enterprises were formed in the 1920s. This included the formation of Eskom in 1923 to undertake the business of electricity generation, and later Iscor 1928 in the steel manufacturing industry. The establishment of Sasol followed in 1950 to value add on the coal resources through the production of fuel. Fuel production from coal was also necessitated by the need to reduce the dependence on imported petrol in the wake of the international economic sanctions against the apartheid regime.13
The period 1950 to 1994 was marked by a sustained growth of State-owned industries established to intensively process the energy resources. Public investment in these industries was ideal as the huge capital outlay required to achieve the necessary economies of scale was beyond the reach of the private sector. However, these industries were built through Eskom as it aimed to value-add on the country’s coal reserves, which also provided an impetus to the enhancement of industrialisation process. Iscor was also a catalyst in the economic growth process, especially as it supported the development of the manufacturing sector.
143
Journal of
Global Analysis
A R
evie
w o
f P
ub
lic a
nd
Pri
vate
Inve
stm
en
t in
So
uth
Afr
ica
The Restructuring of State-Owned Enterprises in South Africa during the Period 1994 to 2004
After attaining independence from the apartheid regime in 1994, the South African government inherited over 300 State enterprises. These State enterprises controlled over 50% of the fixed capital assets in the economy, a state of affairs which reflected the strong State economic management system.14 However, because of the growing inefficiencies of these State enterprises, which had already started during the apartheid system, the new government set out to privatise some portfolios of the parastatal sector.
Thus, in 1994 the department of public enterprises was renamed the ‘Office of Privatisation’. Under the economic philosophy that the government would not take an active commercial role in the economy, the mandate of the new department was to dispose of some State-owned enterprises. To reflect on the immediate economic needs of the society, the privatisation programme was modified into the State enterprise-restructuring policy. The restructuring which was adopted later after some initial effort to dispose of some State enterprises to the private sector, aimed to introduce the private sector commercial spirit within the strategic areas of the public enterprises’ value chain without necessarily selling them off.15
The State enterprise-restructuring strategy – which got endorsements from the adopted Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) in 1994, Growth with Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) in 1996, the National Framework Agreement (NFA) in 1996 and later the Inter-ministerial Cabinet Committee on restructuring of State assets (IMCC) in 1999 – was an instrument through which the new South African government sought to address some of the economic, social and political imbalances inherited from the apartheid regime.16
In 1999, this restructuring strategy was narrowed down to the four largest State enterprises: Telkom (telecommunication), Transnet (transport), Denel (defence production) and Eskom (electricity production and distribution) – since they collectively commanded a strategic importance in the entire economy. Of the top 30 South African State-owned enterprises, the four controlled a cumulative 90% of the economic assets; 86% of the turnover and 94% of the net income of the combined top 30 South African State enterprises. Their economic dominance was far-reaching, which indicated their potential to boost the industrial policies.17
The Resurfacing of the State in Economic Activities
From the year 2004, there was a deliberate policy by the South Africa government to stall the then ongoing restructuring of the State-owned enterprises. Instead, State enterprises were incorporated in the agenda to create a developmental state. The restructuring and privatisation programme of the State-owned enterprises were made subordinate to the strategy of using the public enterprises to enhance the important national goals which were the provision of national goods and services, creation of sustainable employment and economic black empowerment. This was supposed to be achieved in parallel to fostering State enterprises’ productivity, profitability and competitiveness.18
In line with the developmental State agenda, the Department of Public Enterprises in the strategic plan for 2009-2012 was given mandate to direct public enterprises to contribute more to economic growth and employment creation. In the strategic plan, State-owned enterprises were positioned to provide infrastructure, address market failure, absorb labour, offer procurement and form strategic partnerships with domestic and foreign private sector equity holders in projects that required huge capital outlays.19
Both Accelerated and Shared Growth Initiative for South Africa (ASGISA), which was launched in 2003/2004, and later the New Growth Path (NGP) economic strategies provided the institutional backing for the dependence on public enterprises to grow the economy.20 In line with this economic philosophy, the South African government increased its allocation of
144
A
Rev
iew
of
Pu
blic
an
d P
riva
te In
vest
me
nt
in S
ou
th A
fric
a Journal of
Global Analysis
funds to public enterprises for the investment in various economic infrastructures. Public investment was, therefore, expected to grow to R370 billion in line with the Medium-term Budget Policy statement released in October 2005 for the period April 2005 to March 2008.Public infrastructure that received a boost in investment allocation included power generation and distribution, harbours, oil pipeline and rail transport.21
The New Growth Path Framework in 2010 also underscored the importance of high public infrastructure investment growth as the backbone for high and sustained economic growth. The framework focused on five key public investment areas, namely: communication, transport, water, energy and housing. In these areas, it was believed the much-needed high employment and economic growth rates could be achieved. New capital formation and the expanded maintenance programme of the existing infrastructure in the identified areas were the forms in which new value would be unlocked in employment and hence growth.22
Private Investment in South Africa
The origin and growth dynamics of private investment in South Africa, which largely was influenced by the public investment growth policies, can also be traced from the apartheid period (1948-1994). During the period, the adopted public investment-led growth strategy overshadowed the growth prospects of the private enterprises. Nevertheless, private investment growth benefited immensely from the adopted inward-looking strategy that was aimed to substitute imports and grow domestic absorption. This resulted in the creation of a vibrant mixed economic system, although the State had dominance in economic activities.23
Private investment in South Africa during the apartheid period was driven largely by the mining activities. There was rapid expansion in the private mining business, particularly in gold in the 1950s and 1960s. Its growth was furthered when mining groups vertically diversified their investment in the 1960s following the restriction on the exportation of capital from South Africa in 1961. Thus, taking advantage of the high core infrastructure growth in the 1960s and 1970s combined with the adopted import substitution policies, the mining houses invested in supplier industries such as production of specialist drilling equipment and in their market industries such as the steel value-adding production.24
Thus, total private investment in South Africa experienced growth buoyancy in the 1960s and 70s largely from the growing domestic aggregate demand which was stimulated by the inward-looking economic policy. However, the limit to this growth was reached in the 1980s during the height of the country’s international economic isolation triggered by apartheid. Private investment growth slowed down and this also coincided with the building up of inefficiencies in the State-owned enterprises.25
Partly because of these economic developments, the apartheid government embraced the neoclassical policies centred on privatisation of State-owned enterprises, prior to 1994. This set the tone for the promotion of the private sector to lead in the economic growth process. This was also believed to be a panacea to the high losses and low efficiency characteristic of State enterprises during the early 1980s.
The rationale for privatisation was also partly derived from the international (especially the Western developed economies) general belief that increasing share of government investments as a ratio to GDP implies an increasingly declining proportion of the resources allocated to the dictates of the market and price mechanism. This development was believed to promote economic inefficiency and retards economic growth rates.26
Privatisation of State enterprises in South Africa was also based on the world-wide trend which was firmly grounded on the fact that economies with the highest economic growth rates had kept the State economic participation to the basic low levels – implying that a growing share of the national resources were allocated to the competitive private sector.27
145
A R
evie
w o
f P
ub
lic a
nd
Pri
vate
Inve
stm
en
t in
So
uth
Afr
ica
Journal of
Global Analysis
The State and the private sector during the period embraced privatisation as a good strategy to stimulate high economic growth rates through the elimination of the State in commercial economic activities, promotion of competition by enhancing private capital ownership and embracing the ideologies of the free market system in economic management.28
Hence, privatisation during the end of the 1980s proceeded by first commercialising the targeted State enterprise to enhance its efficiency and profitability before its final disposal. Though the privatisation spirit lost some momentum in the early 1990s due to the constitution negotiations, few State enterprises were disposed and this included Sasol and Iscor.29
Trends in Public Investment, Private Investment and Economic Growth in South Africa from 1965 to 2012
Economic growth rates had generally been high in the 1960s and 1970s, which averaged about 4.5%. As can be observed in Figure 1, growth rates during the period were oscillating around 4%. Initially, these growth rates were propelled by higher private sector capital formation that was in dominance over its counterpart (public corporation and general government) during the 1960s to the early 1970s. The pre-dominant economic activities were private enterprises in mining and manufacturing. Later in the 1970s, the high economic growth rates were associated with a combined higher capital formation by public corporation and the general public dominating over the private sector. The growth trend benefited from the adopted inward-looking economic policy that set to replace imports and position State enterprises as an engine for economic growth. The State enterprises in energy, transport, communication and defence were the major drivers of this dominating new capital formation.
Figure 1: South Africa Economic Growth Rates from 1965 to 2012
Source: SARB
The limit to this public sector capital formation domination was reached in the 1980s when the international economic sanctions against the apartheid regime started to intensify. The economic isolation of the South African economy dried up funds for new State projects, resulting in a slowdown of the public investments. As a result, private investment overtook public investment in new capital formation, especially when it benefited from the market economic policies that were in the initial phases of adoption in the 1980s. Economic growth rates during the period were moderate, spiking around 2% up to 1994. It can, however, be
146
A
Rev
iew
of
Pu
blic
an
d P
riva
te In
vest
me
nt
in S
ou
th A
fric
a Journal of
Global Analysis
argued that the contribution of private capital leadership to economic growth was overshadowed by the negative intensifying international economic sanctions during the period.
Private sector capital formation continued with its domination from 1994, when the new South African government adopted the privatisation programme which was to last until 2004. The cutting back of State enterprises inefficiency and the flourishing private business were associated with the upward economic growth trend that started from 1994 to 2007 (see Figure 1). Higher private fixed-investment expenditure in sectors such as real estate, tourism, manufacturing, mining (notably platinum) and automotive were behind this growth trend.30 The economic growth trend also benefited from the increased State new investment projects expenditure, especially in electricity (Eskom) and Transport (Transnet).
The growth trend of private investment from 1966 to 2013 can also be seen in the growth of domestic credit extended to the private sector for investment over the same period. As is illustrated by Figure 2, domestic credit to the private sector for the period from 1966 to the early 1990s remained suppressed. The greater part of this period corresponds to the era of high public investment growth which was largely financed by the domestic resources since the State could not easily secure cheap foreign credit because of the international sanctions levelled against the country. This may suggest that private investments were crowded out in domestic resource allocation by its public investment counterpart. However, higher economic growth rates experienced in the 1960s and 1970s may also suggest that the crowding in effect of the high public capital formation outweighed the private sector investment crowding out.
Figure 2: Domestic Credit Extended to the Private Sector Investment from 1966 to 2013 (in R Million)
Source: South African Reserve Bank Database
The sharp growth in domestic resources allocated to the private sector for investment (see Figure 2) from 1994 to 2013 can be explained by the pro private sector economic leadership policies implemented during the period. These were the privatisation programme of the period 1994 to 2004, the Growth Employment and Redistribution (GEAR) macroeconomic programme in 1996, the Accelerated Shared And Growth Initiative-South Africa (ASGISA) in 2006, the New Growth Path (NGP) in 2010 and the National Development Plan vision 2030 in 2011, which all promoted private sector economic leadership.
147
A R
evie
w o
f P
ub
lic a
nd
Pri
vate
Inve
stm
en
t in
So
uth
Afr
ica
Journal of
Global Analysis
The economic growth rates, however, reached the bottom low of -1.7% in 2009 from a peak of 5.7% in 2006. This was against a background of slowing private enterprise new capital formation starting in 2008, which plummeted to -16% in 2009. Higher growth in public corporation capital formation of 77% in 2008 and 16% in 2009 could not reverse the sharp drop in economic growth rates from 2007 to 2009. There are, however, other negative forces that can partly explain this negative growth, for example the weakening global economy during the period.31
As illustrated in Figure 1, recovery in economic growth started in 2010, when it rose sharply before it eased down in 2012. The recovery was associated with the increasing new capital formation in which the private sector was dominating. The increasing economic growth trend was expected to continue beyond 2012, underpinned by the private sector dominance in economic activities, with further growth in public sector investment expected to crowd in growth in private businesses.
Disaggregation of Total Investment by Economic Sectors
The analysis of capital formation by sector in South Africa since the 1950s confirm that private investment had been the driving force behind its economic growth process. As is illustrated in Table 1, the financial services sector had the highest share of the gross capital formation in the South African economy followed by manufacturing from 1950 to 2012. Ironically, these are the sectors which were dominated by the private sector enterprises, which imply the central importance of private investment in the South African economic growth process.
Table 1: Percentage Sectorial Contribution to Gross Investment from 1950 to 2012
Source:www.reservebank.co.za
148
A
Rev
iew
of
Pu
blic
an
d P
riva
te In
vest
me
nt
in S
ou
th A
fric
a Journal of
Global Analysis
Sector
1950s
1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000 to 2012
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 16.72 9.89 7.08 5.04 3.82 2.56
Mining and Quarrying 12.15 7.45 6.42 11.36 9.92 9.50
Manufacturing 10.83 15.02 16.47 17.02 21.62 19.65
Electrical, Gas and Water 7.12 7.46 8.65 12.41 7.22 7.47
Construction 0.43 0.97 1.54 1.33 1.09 1.76
Wholesale and Retail Trade 5.49 6.48 6.45 5.67 6.22 7.01
Transport, Storage and Communication 13.62 13.79 15.03 10.82 10.95 15.29
Financial Services 20.03 19.43 19.31 22.46 23.40 20.35
Community, Social and Personal Services 13.60 19.50 19.06 13.89 15.75 16.37
Figure 3: Public Investment in South Africa form 1969 to 2012 (in million rands at 2000 constant prices)
Source: South African Reserve Bank Data
Figure 4 : Disaggregation of Public Investment into its Various Components in South Africa from 1960 to 2012 (in million rands at 2005 constant prices).
Source: South African Reserve Bank Data
The sectors that have been consistently losing their shares in total capital formation were agriculture, mining and electricity since the 1980s. On the positive side, construction, community, social and personal services sectors recovered their shares during the period from the 1990s to 2012. The overall growth trend of investment was such that private investment was higher in sectors where it had comparatively higher efficiency than its counterpart and public investment was high in sectors where it was expected to stimulate higher gross capital formation.
The consistent withdrawal of public investment from commercial activities can be affirmed from the South African disaggregated total public investment data from 1969 to 2012 (see
149
A R
evie
w o
f P
ub
lic a
nd
Pri
vate
Inve
stm
en
t in
So
uth
Afr
ica
Journal of
Global Analysis
Figure 3). Until the end of the 1980s, business public investment has been higher than its non-business counterpart. This signified the participation of the State in commercial activities that were predominantly in power generation, transport and telecommunication, which by their nature crowded in private investment. The reversal to this trend was from the 1990s when the share of non-business investment from total public investment exceeded business investment. The sectors in which this new trend was manifesting itself in the South African economy are shown in Figure 4.
The feature that stands out from Figure 4 is that construction work consistently occupied the greatest share of public investment even though for a while, machinery and other equipment were the highest from the end of the 1980s to the end of 1990s. This was in line with the inward-looking growth strategy as supported by public works which was implemented by the apartheid regime and even later by the new unity government.
The share of residential housing public investment showed an upturn soon after the transition from the apartheid era. The increase in this kind of investment was in line with the new government policy to provide decent shelter for the previously disadvantaged community. The decline in public investment in machinery and transport equipment after the transition to the new government in 1994 distinctly shows the disengagement of the State from the commercial economic activities.
The overal analysis from the disaggregated public investment in South Africa indicates that it is increasingly not competing with the private sector enterprises. A growing share of public investment resources has been allocated to the private sector complementary activities. However, the reducing public investment in transport, telecommunication and electricity in South Africa is a call for increased new capital formation in the basic infrastructure that catalyses higher private capital formation.
Challenges Facing Private and Public Investment in South Africa
Relative to other African economies, the South African investment climate is considered to be more competitive – with affordable and high-quality infrastructure and excellent property rights. This has resulted in South African private and public investment growing tremendously over time. However, sustained higher growth in investment and hence the economy can be possible if the South African government addresses the problems of the low levels of product market competition, inadequate infrastructure, and costly transport logistics and communication networks.32
Low levels of product market competition have also been holding back full investment growth in South Africa. As proxied by the mark-ups, the growing empirical body of literature for South Africa suggests that in comparison to industries worldwide, the manufacturing mark-ups are higher and are not falling.33
The high mark-ups and the resultant depressed product market competition in South Africa denies business operations static and dynamic gains that are consistent with increased competition.34 These arise due to resource reallocation resulting in higher productivity and the better use of technology in response to high competition. As has been suggested by Faulkner and Makrelov (2008), completely eliminating the manufacturing sector mark-ups would unlock the economic growth potential by 1.2 percentage points.35
Non-all-inclusive infrastructure in South Africa has also been slowing economic growth. Though several parts of South Africa have world-standard infrastructure in information technology, transport network, energy and education, there are some parts that suffer from extreme deprivation and exclusion from this infrastructure.36
150
A
Rev
iew
of
Pu
blic
an
d P
riva
te In
vest
me
nt
in S
ou
th A
fric
a Journal of
Global Analysis
Intrinsically related to the problem of non-all-inclusive infrastructure in South Africa are the inefficient and costly transport logistics and communication networks. The absence of competition in the network industries has been blamed for not realising higher economic growth potential in South Africa.37
Lastly, difficulties in accessing affordable finance have been hampering growth in small and medium enterprises. The growth in these small enterprises has recently been deemed an important driver of further high investment growth and the economy of South Africa.
Conclusion
This paper discussed the evolution of public and private investment and the resultant economic growth rates from 1965 to 2012 for South Africa. From the analysis, three broad economic reform periods that shaped the two components of investment and economic growth stand out. These are: (i) the rise of public investment under the auspices of the inward-looking growth strategy during the apartheid era; (ii) the privatisation and restructuring of the State-owned enterprises during the period 1994 to 2004; and (iii) the re-emergence of the State in economic activities paralleled with the enhanced private enterprises growth promotion (2004-2012).
Under pressure from the high international economic sanctions, the apartheid government adopted the inward-looking economic growth policy. This gave rise to massive growth in core infrastructure public investment that crowded in private investment in various sectors of the economy. Initially the economic growth strategy was credited for the impressive economic growth rates that followed, but as the international economic sanctions intensified, it was abandoned for the neo-liberal policies.
To cut back on the growing inefficiencies in the parastatal sector, the new South African government at the dawn of independence in 1994 perpetuated the market policies that were initiated by its predecessor. Pivotal to these policies were the commercialisation of the State enterprises and the disposal of their non-core economic activities to revamp their efficiency. By 2004, not as much was achieved on the privatisation front, implying the continued high State presence in economic activities.
Necessitated by the objective to achieve high and all inclusive economic growth, the State re-emerged more strongly in economic activities during the 2004 to 2012 economic reform period. Massive growth in core infrastructure public investment, notably in electricity generation and communication, was rolled out as catalyst for sustained private investment growth.
151
A R
evie
w o
f P
ub
lic a
nd
Pri
vate
Inve
stm
en
t in
So
uth
Afr
ica
Journal of
Global Analysis
Notes
1. Aschauer, “Is public expenditure productive?”, 177-200; Aschauer, “Does public capital crowd out private capital?”, 171-188; Munnell, “Why has Productivity Growth Declined? Productivity and Public Investment”, 3-22; Odedokun, “Relative Effects of Public versus Private Investment Spending on Economic Efficiency and Growth in Developing Countries”, 1325-1336; Pereira, “On the Effects of Public Investment on Private Investment: What Crowds in What?”, 3-25.; Pereira and Andraz, “On the Impact of Public Investment on the Perfomance of US Industries”, 66-90; Afonso and Aubyn, , “Macroeconomic Rates of Return of Public and Private Investment: Crowding In and Crowding Out Effects” .
2. Rossiter, “Structural Cointegration Analysis of Private and Public Investment”, 59-67; Erden and Holcombe, “The Linkage Between Public and Private Investment: A Co-Integration Analysis of a Panel of Developing Countries”, 479-492; Graham, , “Public and Private Investment in United States and Canada”, 641-64; Narayan, “Do Public Investment Crowds Out Private Investment? Fresh Evidence from Fiji”, 747-753.
3. Khan and Kumar, “Public and Private Investment and the Growth Process in Developing Countries”, 69-88.
4. DPE, “Restructuring of State Owned Enterprises in South Africa”
5. Perkins et al., “An Analysis of Economic Infrastructure Investment in South Africa”, 211-228.
6. DPE, “Restructuring of State Owned Enterprises in South Africa”
7. Pitcher, “Was Privatisation Necessary and Did it Work? The Case of South Africa”, 243-260.
8. Reddy and Moodley, “Privatisation of Public Corporations in South Africa: The issue Re- Examined, Africanus”, 72-79; Mostert, “Reflections on South Africa’s Restructuring of State Owned Enterprises”, ; Perkins et al., “An Analysis of Economic Infrastructure Investment in South Africa”, 211-228.
9. DPE, “Restructuring of State Owned Enterprises in South Africa”
10. Perkins et al., “An Analysis of Economic Infrastructure Investment in South Africa”, 211-228.
11. Ibid.
12. DPE, “Restructuring of State Owned Enterprises in South Africa”
13. Clark, “Manufacturing Apartheid: State Corporations in South Africa”
14. Jerome, Privatisation and Regulation in South Africa - An Evaluation, 2004
15. DPE, “An Accelerated Agenda Towards the Restructuring of State Owned Enterprises”
16. Ibid.
17. Ibid.
18. Pitcher, Pitcher, “Was Privatisation Necessary and Did it Work? The Case of South Africa”, 243-260.
19. Molefe, “Director general’s report”, 3; DPE, “Restructuring of State Owned Enterprises in South Africa, Ministry of Public Enterprises”
20. The Presidency, “Accelerated And Shared Growth Initiative- South Africa (ASGISA): A Summary”; Republic of South Africa, “The New Growth Path: The Framework”
152
A
Rev
iew
of
Pu
blic
an
d P
riva
te In
vest
me
nt
in S
ou
th A
fric
a Journal of
Global Analysis
21. The Presidency, “Accelerated And Shared Growth Initiative- South Africa (ASGISA): A Summary”;
22. Republic of South of Africa, “The New Growth Path: The Framework”
23. Mostert, “Reflections on South Africa’s Restructuring of State Owned Enterprises”
24. Innes, “Anglo American and the rise of modern South Africa”
25. Faulkner and Loewald, “Policy Change and Economic Growth: A Case Study of South Africa”
26. Department of Public Enterprises, “White Paper on Privatisation and Restructuring”
27. Ibid.
28. Reddy and Moodley, “Privatisation of Public Corporations in South Africa: The issue Re- Examined”
29. DPE, “Restructuring of State Owned Enterprises in South Africa”
30. National Treasury, “South Africa’s Growth and Development: Overview”
31. African Economic Outlook, “South Africa 2010”
32. NPC, “National Development Plan 2030”; USAID/SA, “Country Development Cooperation Strategy Public Version, Fiscal Year 2013-2017”; South African Government and European Commission, “Joint Country Strategy Paper 2007-2013, Cooperation Between the European Union and South Africa”; SARB, “Achieving Higher Growth and Employment: Policy Options for South Africa”
33. Fedderke et al., “Mark-up Pricing in South African Industry”, 28-69; Aghion et al. “Competition and Productivity Growth in South Africa” ,
34. Nickell, “Competition and Cooperation Performance”, 724-746.
35. Faulkner and Makrelov, “Productivity-Raising Interventions for the South African Economy: a CGE Analysis”
36. NPC, “National Development Plan 2030”
37. OECD, 2008
153
A R
evie
w o
f P
ub
lic a
nd
Pri
vate
Inve
stm
en
t in
So
uth
Afr
ica
Journal of
Global Analysis
Bibliography
Afonso, A and Aubyn, M.S, “Macroeconomic Rates of Return of Public and Private Investment: Crowding In and Crowding Out Effects”, Working Paper, No. 06/2008/DE/UECE, Department of Economics, Technical University of Lisbon, 2008.
African Economic Outlook. South Africa 2010, African Development Bank, 2010.
Aghion, P; Braum, M and Fedderke, J, “Competition and Productivity Growth in South Africa”, CID Working Paper, No. 132, Center for International Development, Harvard University, 2008.
Aschauer, D, “Is public expenditure productive?”, Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1989a, p 177-200.
Aschauer, D, “Does public capital crowd out private capital?”, Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 24, No. 2, 1989b, p 171-188.
Clark, N. Manufacturing Apartheid: State Corporations in South Africa, Yale University Press, 1994.
Department of Public Enterprises, Restructuring of State Owned Enterprises in South Africa, Presidential Review Committee, Ministry of Public Enterprises, Republic of South Africa, 2012a.
Department of Public Enterprises, Restructuring of State Owned Enterprises in South Africa, Ministry of Public Enterprises, Republic of South Africa, 2012b.
Department of Public Enterprises, An Accelerated Agenda Towards the Restructuring of State Owned Enterprises, Ministry of Public Enterprises, Republic of South Africa, 2000.
Department of Public Enterprises, White Paper on Privatisation and Restructuring, Government Printer, Pretoria, 1987.
Erden, L and Holcombe, R.G, “The Linkage Between Public and Private Investment: A Co-Integration Analysis of a Panel of Developing Countries”, Eastern Economic Journal, Vol. 32, No.3, 2006, p 479-492.
Faulkner, D and Loewald, C, “Policy Change and Economic Growth: A Case Study of South Africa”, Policy Paper, No. 14, National Treasury of the Republic of South Africa, 2008.
Faulkner, J and Makrelov, K, “Productivity-Raising Interventions for the South African Economy: a CGE Analysis”, Paper Presented at the Eco Mod 2009 Conference, Ottawa Canada, 2009.
Fedderke, J.W; Kularatne, C and Mariotti M, “Mark-up Pricing in South African Industry”, Journal of African Economics, Vol.16, No. 1, 2007, p 28-69.
Graham, M.V, “Public and Private Investment in United States and Canada”, Economic Modelling, Vol. 29, No.4, 2002, p 641-64.
Innes, D. Anglo American and the rise of modern South Africa, Heinemann, 1984.
Jerome, A, “Privatisation and Regulation in South Africa - An Evaluation”, 3rd International Conference on Pro-Poor Regulation and Competition: Issues, Policies and Practices, Cape Town- South Africa, 2004.
Khan, M.S and Kumar, M.S, “Public and Private Investment and the Growth Process in Developing Countries”, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 59, No.1, 1997, p 69-88.
Molefe, P, “Director general’s report”, , In: Department of Public Enterprises, Strategic Plan, 2009-2012, p. 3, 2009.
Mostert, C, “Reflections on South Africa’s Restructuring of State Owned Enterprises”,
154
A
Rev
iew
of
Pu
blic
an
d P
riva
te In
vest
me
nt
in S
ou
th A
fric
a Journal of
Global Analysis
Occssional Paper, No. 5, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, South African Office, 2002.
Munnell, A.H, “Why has Productivity Growth Declined? Productivity and Public Investment”, New England Economic Review, January/ February, 1990, pp 3-22.
Narayan, P.K, “Do Public Investment Crowds Out Private Investment? Fresh Evidence from Fiji”, Journal of Policy Modelling, Vol. 26, No.6, 2004, pp 747-753.
National Treasury, “South Africa’s Growth and Development: Overview”, National Treasury Growth Diagnostics Workshop, 2005.
Nickell, S, “Competition and Cooperation Performance”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 104, 1996, p 724-746.
NPC (National Planning Commission), “National Development Plan 2030”; Our Future –Make it Work, South African Government, 2012.
Odedokun, M.O, “Relative Effects of Public versus Private Investment Spending on Economic Efficiency and Growth in Developing Countries”, Applied Economics, Vol. 29 No.10, 1997, p 1325-1336.
OECD, South African Economic Assessment, 2008.
Pereira, A.M and Andraz, J.M, “On the Impact of Public Investment on the Perfomance of US Industries”, Public Finance Review, Vol. 31, No.1, 2003, p 66-90.
Pereira, A.M, “On the Effects of Public Investment on Private Investment: What Crowds in What?”, Public Finance Review, Vol. 29, No.1, 2001, p 3-25.
Perkins, P; Fedderke, J and Luiz, J, “An Analysis of Economic Infrastructure Investment in South Africa”, South African Journal of Economics, Vol. 73, No.2, 2005, p 211-228.
Pitcher, A, “Was Privatisation Necessary and Did it Work? The Case of South Africa”, Review of African Political Economy, Vol. 39, No.132, 2012, p 243-260.
Reddy, P.S and Moodley, D, “Privatisation of Public Corporations in South Africa: The issue Re- Examined, Africanus”, Journal of Development Alternatives, Vol. 23, No.1 and 2, 1993, p 72-79.
Republic of South Africa, The New Growth Path: The Framework, South African Government, 2010.
Rossiter, R, “Structural Cointegration Analysis of Private and Public Investment, International Journal of Business and Economics, Vol. 1, No.1, 2002, p 59-67.
SARB, “Achieving Higher Growth and Employment: Policy Options for South Africa”, Working Paper, No. 13/03, South African Reserve Bank, 2013.
South African Reserve Bank, Online Historical Macroeconomic Time Series Information, Various Issues.
South African Government and European Commission, Joint Country Strategy Paper 2007-2013, Cooperation Between the European Union and South Africa, South African Government, European Commission and European Union member States, 2006.
The Presidency, Accelerated And Shared Growth Initiative- South Africa (ASGISA): A Summary, Republic of South Africa, 2006.
USAID/SA, Country Development Cooperation Strategy Public Version, Fiscal Year 2013-2017, USAID/ Southern Africa, 2013.
155
A R
evie
w o
f P
ub
lic a
nd
Pri
vate
Inve
stm
en
t in
So
uth
Afr
ica
Journal of
Global Analysis
www.cesran.org
