South Africa in a tight spot

It has not been a good year for South Africa. Its currency, the rand, has slid 15 percent against the dollar because of sluggish growth, stubbornly high inflation and the flight to safety sparked by the Fed’s announcement in May that it would likely scale back its $85 billion-a-month stimulus programme before the end of the year. Unemployment currently stands at 25.6 percent. The economy managed to grow by 3 percent in the second quarter but is projected to slow in the second half of the year. Ongoing strikes have cost it billions of dollars in lost output and tainted its image among investors abroad. The three major credit agencies downgraded its credit rating to Triple B.

The barrage of downbeat economic news has come from a country until recently considered the economic powerhouse of the continent and which contributed 40 percent of the GDP of Sub-Saharan Africa. Yet last week its central bank governor, Gill Marcus, said that at its current growth rates South Africa risked being overtaken by Nigeria as Africa’s biggest economy within a decade. Furthermore, sluggish growth coupled with high inflation, which hit 6.4 percent in August, mean the central bank is in a tight spot. The sickly growth rate and high unemployment rate would call for an interest rate cut, but with inflation already breaching the central bank’s target range of 3 to 6 percent it has little room for manoeuvre.

To be sure uncertainty over the Fed’s next policy move has weighed heavily on Africa’s biggest economy. Given that South Africa relies heavily on foreign capital to finance its current account deficit, which is around 6 percent of GDP, it was particularly badly hit when investors pulled their money out of emerging markets at the prospect of the pool of cheap dollars drying up. In fact, after the Fed’s surprise announcement that it would not taper in September after all, the rand picked up a little but still has not lifted itself back to its former levels.

The economy was been badly hit by the wave of violent labour unrest in some of the country’s most important sectors, such as mining and motor manufacturing. The strikes have not been as long as last year but have definitely not burnished the country’s image abroad.

To top it all off the politics has not been that great either. The ruling African National Congress (ANC) which has been in power since the end of apartheid in 1994 has been suffering from internal splits, enduring inequality and poverty as well as corruption. Many young people in South Africa do not feel their living conditions have improved and feel increasingly disaffected with the ANC. Deputy President Kgalema Motlanthe called the country’s staggeringly high youth unemployment, which stands at 50%, a “ticking time bomb.” High levels of youth unemployment can lead to social unrest and there are fears within the ANC that South Africa is running the risk of an Arab Spring. If President Jacob Zuma is to win next year’s election and prove that his party has not failed the country he needs to step up his game.

One cliff at a time

John Boehner

American politicians have not disappointed. After creating the fiscal cliff themselves, they proved incapable of avoiding it entirely and have set themselves up for another round of gruelling negotiations on raising the debt ceiling and replacing the sequester (across the board spending cuts worth $110 billion per year) pretty much as soon as the current deal is signed into law. This latest law jewel emanating from a dysfunctional Congress extends the Bush tax cuts for individuals and couples earning less than $400,000 and $450,000, respectively. Above that threshold the marginal rate will rise from 35% to 39.6%. Inheritance taxes will go up from 35% to 40% after the first $5m for individuals and $10m for couples, whilst taxes on capital gains and dividends will rise to 20% from the current 15%. The enhanced unemployment benefits affecting some two million people will be extended for another year whilst the tax credits for poorer and middle-class families have been extended for another five years.

Lawmakers have not exceeded our expectations then. The deal does nothing to address the spending cuts, which have been delayed for a few months, and the debt ceiling, which the Treasury reached on Monday (although it still has some wiggle room to allow it to borrow for another two months). Furthermore, the payroll-tax cut was allowed to expire as scheduled meaning that workers’ purchasing power will decrease by about $1,000 each, causing a significant drag on the economy. Entitlements, which many analysts agree will be a key driver of the burgeoning US debt in the future, have not been tackled although they will probably become a sticking point in the next negotiations as Republicans will demand cuts to them as a price for raising the debt ceiling. Given that they won not a single spending cut in the latest round and backed down on increasing taxes for the rich, they will most likely not be enthused by a sincere spirit of cooperation in the next round. 

President Obama, for his part, has not hesitated to brandish this deal as a Democrat victory and set a worryingly belligerent tone for the next round of negotiations by claiming that “If Republicans think that I will finish the job of deficit reduction through spending cuts alone…they’ve got another thing coming.” His key request that taxes should go up on the rich always made more political than economic sense: higher taxes for the rich should raise about $600 billion over a period of ten years against a projected deficit of $10 trillion over the same period. In other words, pocket change. But it does chime in well with the public sentiment that the rich have weathered the crisis at the expense of the poor and now need to pay their dues. It also goes some way towards appeasing those on the left who perceive Mr. Obama as too often caving in to the demands of the Republicans on protecting the rich. Unfortunately, it does not foster bipartisan cooperation (something Mr. Obama had campaigned on) and basking in symbolic political victories should not come at the price of achieving significant economic ones for the good of the country. Given the unlikelihood of either side steering clear from ideological battles and the fractured chaos of the G.O.P., let us see what deal an ineffective Congress can rustle up next.