‘One of the most important aspects of policy making should be learning from our mistakes, preferably quickly’
I FIND Human Settlements Minister Tokyo Sexwale’s comment that we need a cutoff date for the provision of government housing to poor South Africans, perplexing. For a government critical of private enterprise’s contribution to bridging inequality, and one that expects 25% of the world’s 36th largest economy to be black owned, why such a weak commitment to the creation of pro-poor assets?
The government is emphatic it has an active role in economic growth and social development. It arrogates national resources and monopoly power to define whatever role for itself it sees fit, from policy formation to the provision of public goods and a virtual monopoly on network industries. The effect on the economy of the network industries is immense, constricting output because of logistics bottlenecks and energy shortages. State-owned enterprises increase the costs of business (and inflation) without creating any substantive developmental contribution.
The government is already a bigger player in economic and social development than it pretends or realises. Yet it does not hold itself to account in any obvious way for failure or success. It does not set tangible objectives and therefore cannot be measured even on its pursuit of goals, much less its results.
So we return to Sexwale’s signals on affordability and the need to plan for an end to government-provided housing. On what basis has a conclusion been reached that one of the pillars of government’s social protection and development agenda is not sustainable? Is there a view that government efforts should focus on other, more effective interventions, and will we then see a concomitant reallocation by the Treasury? Will the government prioritise the most cost- efficient and effective procurement policy to maximise the creation of pro-poor housing stock? Will it present a quantitative target and a clear plan for reaching that target? After all, unlike social grants, or even healthcare and education, substantial provision of housing need not be perpetual — we can reach a point at which it is simply a top-up measure.
Can we be assured that poor South Africans (and the country’s development agenda) are not being held hostage to a poorly conceptualised, narrow-effect black economic empowerment agenda that nurtures nondelivery millionaires or nonscalable, survivalist enterprises? Will we consider public-private partnerships that would combine the not inconsiderable centralised purchasing and pricing power of the government with the capacity and potential efficiency of the construction sector — pegged to a more methodical design for empowerment that builds real businesses, with real capacity, engendering a notion of hard work and delivery, instead of easy money for filling in tender forms? Alternatively, is there a reason housing has not been a more prominent feature of the extended public works programme ? Oh, will we consider publicly owned social housing stock as part of the mix? That way we can recycle publicly owned housing stock when those millions finally move up the economic ladder.
One assumes that there is an objective for the government’s housing programme. Consequently, instead of an imperious message about ending it one day, would it not be more useful and accountable to discuss delivery against that objective and give an evaluation of the effect of the programme? One of the most important aspects of policy making should be learning from our mistakes.
For the record, I have no idea whether social housing is affordable or even an appropriate policy. My concern is with management, communication and accountability in the exploitation of public capital — both financial and social. The government persists in claiming an obligation to micro-manage economic development and social delivery. Should this obligation not extend to an exhaustive commitment to delivering on its biggest promises?
Michelle Bachelet, the former president of Chile, once said that her government considered extreme inequality to be a hindrance to growth and a contributor to populism. Chile, she argued, therefore needed to commit to social protection, not merely for the sake of social justice but in order to fully protect open economies. Her government held itself accountable to the delivery of that social protection. Does ours? Our government decries market failure and blames it for rising populism. Where does the failure of social protection feature? The government sees private sector and civil society failures everywhere, yet is curiously easy on itself, rejecting genuine accountability for social delivery while increasing its presence in the public sphere and often rejecting genuine collaboration with nongovernment actors. The natural question becomes, what is the purpose of this gigantic state?
Of course, I may have misinterpreted the trajectory of Sexwale’s comments. Perhaps they are not policy but political signals.
• Mahabane is a partner at Brunswick. He writes in his personal capacity.
- BusinessDay
I FIND Human Settlements Minister Tokyo Sexwale’s comment that we need a cutoff date for the provision of government housing to poor South Africans, perplexing. For a government critical of private enterprise’s contribution to bridging inequality, and one that expects 25% of the world’s 36th largest economy to be black owned, why such a weak commitment to the creation of pro-poor assets?
The government is emphatic it has an active role in economic growth and social development. It arrogates national resources and monopoly power to define whatever role for itself it sees fit, from policy formation to the provision of public goods and a virtual monopoly on network industries. The effect on the economy of the network industries is immense, constricting output because of logistics bottlenecks and energy shortages. State-owned enterprises increase the costs of business (and inflation) without creating any substantive developmental contribution.
The government is already a bigger player in economic and social development than it pretends or realises. Yet it does not hold itself to account in any obvious way for failure or success. It does not set tangible objectives and therefore cannot be measured even on its pursuit of goals, much less its results.
So we return to Sexwale’s signals on affordability and the need to plan for an end to government-provided housing. On what basis has a conclusion been reached that one of the pillars of government’s social protection and development agenda is not sustainable? Is there a view that government efforts should focus on other, more effective interventions, and will we then see a concomitant reallocation by the Treasury? Will the government prioritise the most cost- efficient and effective procurement policy to maximise the creation of pro-poor housing stock? Will it present a quantitative target and a clear plan for reaching that target? After all, unlike social grants, or even healthcare and education, substantial provision of housing need not be perpetual — we can reach a point at which it is simply a top-up measure.
Can we be assured that poor South Africans (and the country’s development agenda) are not being held hostage to a poorly conceptualised, narrow-effect black economic empowerment agenda that nurtures nondelivery millionaires or nonscalable, survivalist enterprises? Will we consider public-private partnerships that would combine the not inconsiderable centralised purchasing and pricing power of the government with the capacity and potential efficiency of the construction sector — pegged to a more methodical design for empowerment that builds real businesses, with real capacity, engendering a notion of hard work and delivery, instead of easy money for filling in tender forms? Alternatively, is there a reason housing has not been a more prominent feature of the extended public works programme ? Oh, will we consider publicly owned social housing stock as part of the mix? That way we can recycle publicly owned housing stock when those millions finally move up the economic ladder.
One assumes that there is an objective for the government’s housing programme. Consequently, instead of an imperious message about ending it one day, would it not be more useful and accountable to discuss delivery against that objective and give an evaluation of the effect of the programme? One of the most important aspects of policy making should be learning from our mistakes.
For the record, I have no idea whether social housing is affordable or even an appropriate policy. My concern is with management, communication and accountability in the exploitation of public capital — both financial and social. The government persists in claiming an obligation to micro-manage economic development and social delivery. Should this obligation not extend to an exhaustive commitment to delivering on its biggest promises?
Michelle Bachelet, the former president of Chile, once said that her government considered extreme inequality to be a hindrance to growth and a contributor to populism. Chile, she argued, therefore needed to commit to social protection, not merely for the sake of social justice but in order to fully protect open economies. Her government held itself accountable to the delivery of that social protection. Does ours? Our government decries market failure and blames it for rising populism. Where does the failure of social protection feature? The government sees private sector and civil society failures everywhere, yet is curiously easy on itself, rejecting genuine accountability for social delivery while increasing its presence in the public sphere and often rejecting genuine collaboration with nongovernment actors. The natural question becomes, what is the purpose of this gigantic state?
Of course, I may have misinterpreted the trajectory of Sexwale’s comments. Perhaps they are not policy but political signals.
• Mahabane is a partner at Brunswick. He writes in his personal capacity.
- BusinessDay
No comments:
Post a Comment