NDP an attainable vision

A protester with a placard expressing his dissatisfaction with the government's National Development Plan at a May Day rally in Durban. Picture: Patrick Mtolo

A protester with a placard expressing his dissatisfaction with the government's National Development Plan at a May Day rally in Durban. Picture: Patrick Mtolo

Published May 31, 2013

Share

Johannesburg - With increasingly strident pronouncements from within the ANC’s tripartite alliance about the National Development Plan (NDP), it is difficult to avoid a sense of exasperation. Will South Africa ever embrace a long-term vision and doggedly pursue it?

In the mid-2000s, when the government’s discussion on long-term planning and social compacting started in earnest, some argued that this was not attainable in our conditions. It would be like trying to herd a clowder of cats.

The inherited state, they argued, was not only in a shambles, but it was configured along British colonial lines. As in India, it would be well-nigh impossible to marshal it along the East Asian model of developmental states.

The country’s economy reflected a middle-income trap at which even some of the successful East Asian countries had stalled; and, at the same time, massive poverty similar to the least developed countries.

Add to this the level of development of the private sector and the intense manifestations of class warfare, and the circle of the impossible would be complete.

Legend has it that, to ensure the compliance of the Korean business sector with his long-term vision some four decades ago, General Pak Chong Hui locked some of them up over a weekend.

When he released them on the Monday, he outlined what was expected of them. So were born the chaebols such as Hyundai, Samsung and LG.

And the rise of a nation which has reached the advanced Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development levels of development, when, in the late 1950s, it was at Ghana’s level, was assured.

The other social sectors also cowered, inspired in part by the benevolence of the dictatorship.

South Africa is a democracy, noisy and given to hyperbole. And unlike the East Asians at the launch of their high-growth paths, it does not have a foreign security threat which, in these countries, was reflected in the imperatives of the Cold War and the fight against leftist guerrillas.

Given the ructions in the tripartite alliance, we seem stuck.

The consensus that flourished in the few months after the release of the NDP seems to be in tatters. We are back excelling in the national sport of shouting matches. Is this assessment accurate?

At the heart of serious developmental plans that have delivered the initial promise is the appreciation of an untenable macrosocial environment in which a country finds itself.

South Africa is at that stage, with rich and poor, black and white, having realised that if the country continues to chug along the same track, the democratic train will derail.

The question is whether we have a leadership across various sectors of society with sufficient foresight to marshal the nation behind a long-term vision.

Is the political leadership so committed to the vision that they are prepared to stake their all on its attainment?

Social compacts involving major role-players in the economy are not a monopoly of East Asia.

They have been implemented in various forms in countries such as Ireland, Finland, Brazil and Holland.

The state in these countries committed to do certain things that would justify the contributions and sacrifices demanded of the other sectors. When duty called, with differences seeming intractable, the state acted in the national interest.

Debate on the National Development Plan should not frighten us. There are no NDP police on patrol, to quote Professor Susan Booysen.

The social cleavages in our society are wide and they cut deep.

Attaining the minimum level of social cohesion necessary to pursue a long-term vision will not be easy.

If there should be any concern, it would be about whether that debate is about issues that matter.

Shorn of rhetoric, there is not much disagreement about the targets set out in the NDP.

Attaining full employment, technically at an unemployment rate of 6 percent and below; eliminating income poverty; reducing inequality; ensuring quality education and health and a social safety net for all; and building an efficient, capable and corruption-free state are ideals that all reasonable South Africans cherish.

What requires strategic reflection is whether full consensus can be attained.

And whether implementation of the ideas contained in the NDP should await such consensus.

Whose plan is it anyway? If the expectation is that it should reflect the preferences of one sector of society, in their totality, would it be a national plan? For instance, can the NDP, to quote the National Union of Metalworkers of South Africa general secretary, moonlighting as cartoon actor, be “a working-class programme, not a capitalist one” or vice versa?

Is it acceptable that some in business embrace the NDP brand in the manner of the “RDP Bar and Tavern” fad of yesteryear, repackage community social investment programmes and then present these as their contribution to Vision 2030 – instead of developing comprehensive sector strategies?

Besides these matters of strategic posture, there should also be the understanding that the NDP outlines a broad logic about development, rather than a detailed programme ready for implementation.

The government has embraced that logic and is working out detailed implementation plans in the form of five-year medium-term strategic frameworks.

Political parties are expected to indicate, in their 2014 election manifestoes, how they will attain the objectives set out in the NDP.

To put it starkly, it cannot be expected that a DA government would concretise and implement the plan in the same manner as an ANC government would.

What about details in the NDP that, some argue, contradict its avowed targets; or targets that are “unambitious”? No one can argue that every idea in the NDP is perfect. But in debating its contents, it is necessary to avoid nitpicking that distorts the plan’s core arguments.

An instance in this regard is the assertion that the plan envisages “shrinkage of the manufacturing sector from 12 percent of GDP in 2010 to 9.6 percent in 2030”.

Besides the fact that the NDP refers to sector distribution of employment (and not GDP), actual manufacturing employment increases by 50 percent. GDP share of manufacturing may in fact grow as a consequence of industrial programmes in the New Growth Path and the Department of Trade and Industry’s policy action plans – which the NDP embraces.

The issue is whether it will create new jobs at the same rate as the more labour-intensive sectors.

Related to this is the question of the quality of jobs in the services sector, the role of small and micro enterprises in job creation and the “low” income poverty datum line of R419 per person a month (in 2009 rand).

It may as well be that a country can achieve decent jobs for most of the unemployed in manufacturing companies. But what is missed is the central logic in the NDP about more than just decent jobs but a decent standard of living, which includes lowering the cost of living for the poor. This encompasses measures such as containing prices of basic commodities, spatial interventions that reduce workers’ expenditure on transport, the social safety net, free basic services, and so on.

The proposal to reduce income inequality – as measured by the Gini co-efficient – from 0.68 to 0.6 by 2030 is perhaps not ambitious enough. But it should be understood in that broader context.

Does the target of a 6 percent unemployment rate ignore the broad definition of unemployment? Simple economic logic has it that, as the unemployment rate goes down, the percentage of those who are discouraged from looking for work also declines and, theoretically, the broad and narrow unemployment rates converge.

Many elements in the arguments against the NDP reflect that one attribute of developmentalism that is in short supply in South Africa: trust.

For instance, in its documents, Cosatu acknowledges the NDP’s reference to minimum wages and standards, improving dispute resolutions and strengthening labour market institutions. Yet it asserts that the NDP aims to deregulate the labour market.

There are indeed many issues in the NDP that should form part of ongoing debate. When all is said and done, this is not the fundamental question. No one can claim that the NDP is perfect. How it is translated into detailed programmes and how it is actually implemented will be crucial.

As to whether the implementation process still requires a “free-floating National Planning Commission” is for the policy-makers to decide. Does a non-governmental NPC add value through independent research, facilitating social compacting and other such functions? In any case, isn’t there supposed to be a cabinet committee on the NDP?

As the SACP correctly argues, we should not “demonise or canonise” the NDP. But we should also avoid chipping it in increasingly strident tones to the extent of delegitimising it altogether.

Otherwise the cats will continue straying in all directions.

The best approach is to debate while implementing the plan.

* Joel Netshitenzhe is the executive director of the Mapungubwe Institute (Mistra) and a member of the National Planning Commission.

The Star

Related Topics: