Why has South Africa's economy stopped growing?

Wilting.

The World Bank announced today that they have reduced South Africa’s growth forecast for 2013 from 3.2 per cent to 2.5 per cent.

This follows poor results released earlier in the week which show that GDP growth for the first 3 months of 2013 slowed to 0.9 per cent.

The slowdown has a number of possible causes including the uncertainly caused by recent mine strikes and labour market disputes.

The World Bank said “firms are delaying investment and hiring decisions within the country until there is a rebound in private investment and household spending”.

Last week, the South African Reserve Bank decided to keep interest rates at 5.0 per cent. Their ability to reduce rates is of course limited by rising inflation which is linked to Rand weakness.

The South African Rand has depreciated by 16 per cent against the US dollar since the end of 2012 and reached a four year low of R9.84/US$ earlier this week.

This trend is also reflected in the valuation of local companies. In US dollar terms, the JSE all share index is down 5.7 per cent this year (between 31 Dec 2012 and 29 May 2013). This is alarming as most major worldwide exchanges are up significantly this year in US dollar terms: the MSCI world index is up 11 per cent and the Dow is up 17 per cent.

South Africa has a number of underlying issues that could impact on growth going forward. A recent report from WealthInsight highlighted the following major risks in the country:

  • Unemployment rates in South Africa exceed 24 per cent, which is well above the emerging market average. This is partly due to a relatively high degree of labour market rigidity with trade unions having a strong presence in the country. The apartheid government has also created a large pool of poorly educated people, contributing to widespread skill mismatches.
  • The ANC government’s close relationship with Robert Mugabe, the Zimbabwean president, is a concern both from an ethical and economic point of view. It is estimated that over four million Zimbabwean refugees have come into South Africa since the Zimbabwean crisis began in 1999.
  • Government corruption is a growing problem. This is likely to continue as the ANC’s dominance makes it difficult for other political parties to challenge ANC officials.
  • A relatively high crime rate, which deters foreign investors and tourists.
  • The HIV epidemic – it is estimated that 21.5 per cent of the adult population is HIV positive, which equates to over five million people. This places significant strain on South Africa’s long-term prospects, both from a social and economic point of view.
Photograph: Getty Images

Andrew Amoils is a writer for WealthInsight

Getty
Show Hide image

Is defeat in Stoke the beginning of the end for Paul Nuttall?

The Ukip leader was his party's unity candidate. But after his defeat in Stoke, the old divisions are beginning to show again

In a speech to Ukip’s spring conference in Bolton on February 17, the party’s once and probably future leader Nigel Farage laid down the gauntlet for his successor, Paul Nuttall. Stoke’s by-election was “fundamental” to the future of the party – and Nuttall had to win.
 
One week on, Nuttall has failed that test miserably and thrown the fundamental questions hanging over Ukip’s future into harsh relief. 

For all his bullish talk of supplanting Labour in its industrial heartlands, the Ukip leader only managed to increase the party’s vote share by 2.2 percentage points on 2015. This paltry increase came despite Stoke’s 70 per cent Brexit majority, and a media narrative that was, until the revelations around Nuttall and Hillsborough, talking the party’s chances up.
 
So what now for Nuttall? There is, for the time being, little chance of him resigning – and, in truth, few inside Ukip expected him to win. Nuttall was relying on two well-rehearsed lines as get-out-of-jail free cards very early on in the campaign. 

The first was that the seat was a lowly 72 on Ukip’s target list. The second was that he had been leader of party whose image had been tarnished by infighting both figurative and literal for all of 12 weeks – the real work of his project had yet to begin. 

The chances of that project ever succeeding were modest at the very best. After yesterday’s defeat, it looks even more unlikely. Nuttall had originally stated his intention to run in the likely by-election in Leigh, Greater Manchester, when Andy Burnham wins the Greater Manchester metro mayoralty as is expected in May (Wigan, the borough of which Leigh is part, voted 64 per cent for Brexit).

If he goes ahead and stands – which he may well do – he will have to overturn a Labour majority of over 14,000. That, even before the unedifying row over the veracity of his Hillsborough recollections, was always going to be a big challenge. If he goes for it and loses, his leadership – predicated as it is on his supposed ability to win votes in the north - will be dead in the water. 

Nuttall is not entirely to blame, but he is a big part of Ukip’s problem. I visited Stoke the day before The Guardian published its initial report on Nuttall’s Hillsborough claims, and even then Nuttall’s campaign manager admitted that he was unlikely to convince the “hard core” of Conservative voters to back him. 

There are manifold reasons for this, but chief among them is that Nuttall, despite his newfound love of tweed, is no Nigel Farage. Not only does he lack his name recognition and box office appeal, but the sad truth is that the Tory voters Ukip need to attract are much less likely to vote for a party led by a Scouser whose platform consists of reassuring working-class voters their NHS and benefits are safe.
 
It is Farage and his allies – most notably the party’s main donor Arron Banks – who hold the most power over Nuttall’s future. Banks, who Nuttall publicly disowned as a non-member after he said he was “sick to death” of people “milking” the Hillsborough disaster, said on the eve of the Stoke poll that Ukip had to “remain radical” if it wanted to keep receiving his money. Farage himself has said the party’s campaign ought to have been “clearer” on immigration. 

Senior party figures are already briefing against Nuttall and his team in the Telegraph, whose proprietors are chummy with the beer-swilling Farage-Banks axis. They deride him for his efforts to turn Ukip into “NiceKip” or “Nukip” in order to appeal to more women voters, and for the heavy-handedness of his pitch to Labour voters (“There were times when I wondered whether I’ve got a purple rosette or a red one on”, one told the paper). 

It is Nuttall’s policy advisers - the anti-Farage awkward squad of Suzanne Evans, MEP Patrick O’Flynn (who famously branded Farage "snarling, thin-skinned and aggressive") and former leadership candidate Lisa Duffy – come in for the harshest criticism. Herein lies the leader's almost impossible task. Despite having pitched to members as a unity candidate, the two sides’ visions for Ukip are irreconcilable – one urges him to emulate Trump (who Nuttall says he would not have voted for), and the other urges a more moderate tack. 

Endorsing his leader on Question Time last night, Ukip’s sole MP Douglas Carswell blamed the legacy of the party’s Tea Party-inspired 2015 general election campaign, which saw Farage complain about foreigners with HIV using the NHS in ITV’s leaders debate, for the party’s poor performance in Stoke. Others, such as MEP Bill Etheridge, say precisely the opposite – that Nuttall must be more like Farage. 

Neither side has yet called for Nuttall’s head. He insists he is “not going anywhere”. With his febrile party no stranger to abortive coup and counter-coup, he is unlikely to be the one who has the final say.