Jump to content

Talk:Economy of South Africa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): T7jackso.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources needed

[edit]

Apropos:

  1. Households using electricity for lighting: 69.7% in 2001, 57.6% in 1996
  2. People with access to electricity: 70% in 2003, 32% in 1994

What's the data source? I understand that there is significant electricity theft that would make the 'official customer' and 'actual user' numbers quite different. A footnote might help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.112.24.180 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 3 April 2005 (UTC)[reply]

nice article, but I wish there was a source for all the data. It's useless for me to have just numbers quoted without reference. You could be anyone, posting anything he likes... Emmanuel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.67.77 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This assertion "with South Africa considered to have the 4th most advanced mobile telecommunications network worldwide" really needs a source. I don't believe it but a good reference would convince me! Dublinblue (Simon in Dublin) (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon, I am British but have lived in SA most my life, and have also worked for one of our largest cellular service providers in the past. I say that I could easily believe we have a relatively solid mobile phone infrastructure, ironically because most people here were (indirectly or sometimes directly) denied access to copper lines because of apartheid, and have subsequently adopted cellular phones to make up for this. It would just take too long and cost too much to lay all that cable! Our infrastructure is incidentally now largely owned by Vodafone. I agree we need sources for the article, and I'd be surprised if we're still as high as fourth. Maybe in the top 20 is more realistic. Grahammcallister (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

[edit]

Page needs slightly better structure. Trade and investment section overlaps with "financial policy", which should probably be "economic policy". I will have a look at other country's pages and compare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeeboy 4 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Needs Cleanup

[edit]

This entry contains a lot of information about the current state of the South African economy and economic policy, but provides little context and is poorly organised. It would be difficult for a reader unfamiliar with South Africa to get a clear sense of the economy's past or future.

There is no explanation of the economic damage caused by apartheid. The policy discussion focuses solely on macroeconomic, trade and industrial policies, with no discussion of social and labour policies and their problems since 1994. Foreign direct investment is not mentioned, yet a whole paragraph is devoted to rather obscure official United States schemes to support capital inflows.

The statistical data provided is rather erratic; for example, production, consumption and trade data for five years is provided for electricity, but value of aggregate trade is given for only one year, with no data as to the composition of trade. The annual average rand:dollar exchange rate is given for the past 15 years, but there is almost no historical data on GDP [gross domestic product] growth, and nothing on other important macroeconomic variables such as investment, international capital flows etc.

Very little data on socio-economic indicators is provided. Overall, the entry reads far more like a brochure aimed at potential investors than a source of understanding for students and the general public.

The page lacks consistency with other national economic pages in Wikipedia. Gini index which describes disparity between rich and poor is missing, for example. Suggest that this be included per data published in World Bank (2009d). "World Development Indicators". Washington DC: World Bank.

-- [quotes from] Stephen Gelb, economist and executive director of The Edge Institute in Johannesburg, [in] Mail & Guardian online: Can you trust Wikipedia? [article by] Elvira van Noort, Johannesburg, South Africa, 07 November 2005 09:13. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tim Chambers (talk • contribs) 09:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

[edit]

A. Nonymous: Hi, may I suggest instead of "formal economy," something more along the lines of "first documented." Europeans didn't bring an economy, they just documented theirs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.110.90.82 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Total screwup

[edit]

I was looking at the section labelled "history of the South African Economy" and it looked weirdly skimpy. Looking through the history I see that there was a lot more at one stage, but that it all got cut. I'd revert it, but I'm worried I'll do more damage. Can someone help with this? ManicParroT 23:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also looked at the section labelled "history of the South African Economy" and looked at the table indicating exchange rates between ZAR and USD. I disagree that we should use any of the Apartheid governments Exchange Rates as it is widely known that they fixed these values and they are thus false values. We should only use these Exchange Rates if we have some sort of ligitimate record/source. --Trek mambo 21:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree that those values ought to be excluded. Those are the rates at which you could purchase USD at that time. Is that not a record? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eholcroft (talk • contribs) 16:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The author writes too much about "complicating factors" especially "human capital flight" and yet he/she does not say a thing about key issues like financial services sector, automotive sectors, defence industry, R&D, education system just to mention a few. A fair amount of space would be better utilised writing about these maters than ranting about affirmative action and BEE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.119.194.85 (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfair

[edit]

it seems unfair to blame apartheid on the british government as SA was independent long before most of apartheid was implemented —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.0.227 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of economy, emphasis on the "kind"?

[edit]

One thing I don't get is why there is no specific "this is a ________ type of economy". It just tells their economic status and history of what happened. So many people use Wikipedia for research, and this is not relevant to what most people need. Someone needs to fix this. 68.41.177.6 (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that what you're asking for might be useful, but could you please explain to future editors what you mean by what "kind" - perhaps refer to categories or terms from the article at Economy; or specify some examples of what you mean (Example categories for "kind" might include the high level principles governing the economy, such as free market, developing, etc or "kind" might refer to the main sectors of the economy, such as manufacturing and mining based?) I looked at the equivalent articles for the United States and the United Kingdom but didn't see a similar summation in the opening part of their articles. Perhaps something similar to the "Overview" section in the United States article. In addition to your change, I also suggest someone consider creating a new category such as "Country Economies" (If not already there!) and applying a standard layout for some consistency across all these articles. For example, compare the SA Economy article with Economy_of_the_UK which has a nice summary on the RHS. Grahammcallister (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
❤️🤣🥺@Grahammcallister 41.113.32.12 (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mining data

[edit]

Multiple sources indicate that South Africa has slipped from the number one gold producer to fourth. For example this from Mining weekly. South Africa is still the number one producer in platinum. I realise that both the Wikipedia gold ranking page and the CIA world factbook state otherwise, but their information is out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.36.64.192 (talk) 09:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More information on services industry needed

[edit]

The article does not talk about what makes up the services industry responsible for 70-odd% of GDP. This is an important omission, since it's not tourism (checked) and I can't think of what else it would be. Anyone know more? I'm not sure where to find out, otherwise I would. Cheers (Sorry, no account) 82.35.98.116 (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor assistance needed at Talk:Welfare

[edit]

It would be useful to have some input from editors whose native language is South African English to provide their perspective to help resolve a dispute over the article Welfare. In essence the argument is about the meaning of the word welfare. One school of thought is that Welfare nowadays mostly means "financial aid for the poor" and that the article about that topic should be simply Welfare. The other school of thought is that the word "welfare" has two meanings ("well-being" and "financial aid for the poor") and that the article welfare should be a disambiguation page explaining the two meanings and then link off to the many articles there are about "financial aid to the poor" such as Social security. One idea is to move the content now in welfare moved over to Welfare (financial aid).

If you have the time, please read the discussions here and record your thoughts here. Cheers--84.250.230.158 (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV problems with "Illegal Immigration" section

[edit]

This section contains the following line:

"With high unemployment levels amongst poorer South Africans, xenophobia is prevalent and many South Africans feel resentful of immigrants who are seen to be depriving the native population of jobs, a feeling which has been given credibility by the fact that many South African employers have employed migrants from other countries for lower pay than South African citizens, as the Illegal immigrants have a desire to work which is sorely lacking in the native population, as they deem it is their right to receive compensation because they were "previously disadvantaged" in the apartheid era, this has forced employers to hire illegal immigrants who are more skilled, especially in the construction, tourism, agriculture and domestic service industries."

The section in bold seems to me to be a clearly biased (and given the South African context, perhaps even racist) statement, and even if not the statement is not reflected in the attributed source article. I propose the whole sentence be reworded to improve its content and structure, I would do it myself but would like to get input from other editors first. PGRandom (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing - I have removed the entire problematic section, added by an anonymous editor and not highlighted until now. Greenman (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brain drain

[edit]

The page has the sentence There has been a large degree of human capital flight from South Africa in recent years, with citations from 2002 and 2004, hardly recent. The since 1994 statistic in the next sentence is also from 8 years ago, and needs to be updated. Does anyone have recent statistics? Greenman (talk) 19:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I dont have time now to do anything about it but you could try the HSRC's website - http://www.hsrc.ac.za - issues such as this are their speciality. Roger (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello everyone, I am working for the International Trade Centre (ITC), a UN/WTO agency that aims to promote sustainable economic development through trade promotion. I would like to propose the addition of an external link (http://www.macmap.org/QuickSearch/FindTariff/FindTariff.aspx?subsite=open_access&country=SCC710%7cSouth+Africa&source=1%7CITC Market Access Map) that leads directly to our online database of customs tariffs applied by South Africa. Visitors can easily look up market access information for South Africa by selecting the product and partner of their interest. I would like you to consider this link under the WP:ELYES #3 prescriptions. Moreover, the reliability and the pertinence of this link can be supported by the following facts 1) ITC is part of the United Nations, and aims to share trade and market access data on by country and product as a global public good 2) No registration is required to access this information 3) Market access data (Tariffs and non-tariff measures) are regularly updated

Thank you, 193.239.220.225 (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Negative aspects

[edit]

While some of the negative aspects of the ANC rule have been rightly pointed out (doubling of unemployment), there are some gaps in the article. i've recently read an article that summarizes some of these points ([http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/mandelas-legacy-the-freefall-of-south-africa Mandela's legacy: The freefall of South Africa]).

  • the HDI is now lower than it was in the 1970s
  • the number of people in South Africa living on less than $1 per day had doubled over the 1994 rate
  • the crime has skyrocketed. being a white farmer in SA is one of the most dangerous proffessions in the world.
  • the age expectancy is now lower than it was in 1980s
  • reverse discrimination: around 90% of government workers are black, above their ratio in the population.

These issues should be dealt with. --Dorpater (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Fedderke's comment on this article

[edit]

Dr. Fedderke has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


Coverage of the article is very partial on the main structural features of the South African economy, and its development challenges. Examples include (in no particular order):

(1.) there is no reference at all to macroeconomic policy questions surrounding structurally low growth in the economy, combined with persistent relatively high inflation rates; indeed, there is next to no discussion on the determinants of and constraints on growth in the economy - despite the fact that South Africa is not yet a high-income country; (2.) there is no (or very partial) reference to the active debate surrounding labor markets, and the possibility that labor is over regulated and overpriced given its productivity characteristics, and that this is a substantial contributor to unemployment; (3.) there is no reference to the extensive debate on the strong evidence on pricing power in output markets, and the significant inhibitor on economic growth this generates; nor of the highly concentrated nature of South African markets; (4.) the discussion of the structure of the economy is misleading; mining now contributes less than 10% to GDP, agriculture less than 4%; yet this is where the bulk of the discussion is located; the striking feature is that South Africa has many features of post-industrialization, with manufacturing shrinking from being the largest sector (replaced by Finance), and with the service sector now contributing more than 60% of GDP; (5.) there is incomplete engagement with the extensive evidence on South African infrastructure constraints, and the productivity impacts these have; there exists an extensive literature on this, none of which is cited; (6.) there is no engagement with the poor quality of human capital provision in the economy; (7.) no engagement with the political economy questions surrounding South Africa; this is particularly important for investment (domestic and foreign) in influencing the level of uncertainty; Some additional references: Aghion, P., Braun, M., and Fedderke, J.W., 2008, Competition and Productivity Growth in South Africa, Economics of Transition, 16(4), 741-68. Aghion, P., Fedderke, J.W., Howitt, P., and Viegi, N., 2013, Testing Creative Destruction in an Opening Economy: the Case of the South African Manufacturing Industries, Economics of Transition, 21(3),419-50. Fedderke, J.W., and Bogetić, Ž., 2009, Infrastructure and Growth in South Africa: Direct and Indirect Productivity Impacts of 19 Infrastructure Measures, World Development, 37(9), 1522-39.

Fedderke, J.W., and Romm, A., 2006, Growth Impact and Determinants of Foreign Direct Investment into South Africa, 1956-2003, Economic Modelling, 23, 738-60.


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

Dr. Fedderke has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:


  • Reference : Zeljko Bogetic & Johannes Fedderke, 2005. "Infrastructure and Growth in South Africa: Benchmarking, Productivity and Investment Needs, paper presented at Economic Society of South Africa (ESSA) Conference, Durban, 9/7-9/2005," Public Economics 0510006, EconWPA.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I am a new user here on WikiPedia but this comment still seems largely on point now in 2021, the article could most certainly be expanded along these lines. AfroManTyg (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)AfroManTyg[reply]

Dr. Calitz and Dr. Hofmeyr's comment on this article

[edit]

Dr. Calitz and Dr. Hofmeyr have reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


In terms of gross domestic product (PPP valuation in US dollars), the economy of South Africa is the second largest in Africa, after Nigeria, and the country accounts for 12 percent of Africa's gross domestic product (PPP), South Africa's GDP per capita (in PPP$), however, averagedmore than twice that of Nigeria over the period 2007-2015, but was surpassed by no less that seven other African countries.(1)

(1) African Economic Outlook. Available: http://www.africaneconomicoutlook.org/en/statistics/.

Please find attached the recommended changes to the Wikipedia piece on the South African economy, submitted as the joint product by myself and my research assistant, Heleen Hofmeyr, as well as the “fact sheet” about South Africa. I have to note that the structure of the document was such that update was rather difficult. Some of the original material reflected the finding of studies and surveys that were relevant at the time, but have become dated and nothing similar are available. My overarching recommendation is that you consider requesting someone at some point to rewrite the entire piece de novo.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8-wWhGFpGYCb3FzOG1yX0JhOUU/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8-wWhGFpGYCWWstTWJla3N6QzA/view?usp=sharing


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Calitz has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


  • Reference : Estian Calitz & Stan du Plessis & Krige Siebrits, 2013. "Fiscal sustainability in South Africa: Will history repeat itself?," Working Papers 07/2013, Stellenbosch University, Department of Economics.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 32 external links on Economy of South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Economy of South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Economy of South Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should South Africa articles use "continental system" numbers?

[edit]

A discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa#Should South Africa articles use "continental system" numbers? might impact this article.

I mention it here because this article has a lot of numbers. Batternut (talk) 09:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The use of gaps for grouping thousands is popular, though using comma as the decimal mark is not. Batternut (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


To impose or not to impose gap-separation (1234567.8 in place of 1,234,567.8) upon existing articles is now the question, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa#Should existing South Africa articles be changed to use gaps as thousands separators?. Batternut (talk) 20:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manage updates and current events

[edit]

Good Day to All

I am writing this hopefully to summarise the concerns as I understand them on this page.

It seems that there is a general concern throughout this talk page regarding:

1: The depth of the article in terms of structural context 2: Throughout the years outdated data

I propose that a South African Economic Task Force, similar to the South African Political Task Force be established to ensure the stats are at least updated on articles such as this one. I am new and therefore I am unfamiliar with the means of the discussion needed to establish this but was hoping someone could assist?

AfroManTyg (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)AfroManTyg[reply]

Following up, is this possible? AfroManTyg (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)AfroManTyg[reply]

Gdp numbers

[edit]

The gdp(nominal) figure has been bloated and is misleading. It's far less. In 2021 it was at around 320 billion and it never grew in 2022. 41.115.126.221 (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Economy_of_South_Africa&oldid=1198236120"