Search

By comparison with most African countries, post-apartheid South Africa appears to be characterised by growth-oriented cooperation between state and business. Economic growth has remained weak, however, and income poverty persists as the economy continues down an inegalitarian growth path that fails to reduce unemployment and thus has little effect on poverty. This paper argues that the appearance of close state-business relations is misleading: selectively pro-market public policies have not reflected a pro-business orientation on the part of the state. The governing African National Congress concurred with established business on the need for increased productivity and selective state interventions in a mixed economy. But most of the political elite overestimated the commandist powers of the state in the short-term, viewed established South African business with deep suspicion if not hostility, and was unwilling to deliberate or negotiate on distributional issues in either formal bilateral or corporatist institutions, or even informally. The state sought to discipline and transform business, not work with it. Unable to sustain an active growth coalition, a pro-poor, developmental coalition was far out of reach. The politics of the governing party precluded substantive concessions on labour market regulation and pushed it towards ever more interventionist 'black economic empowerment' policies. The result was that economic growth remained modest, and of little benefit to the poor. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper proposes a heuristic model that aims to render more visible tensions concerning the role of business or the invisible hand of the market with respect to development. Fair trade is used as an exemplar to explore the relevance of this model, highlighting the tensions apparent in using the market, particularly instruments such as standards and certificates as a vehicle to promote development. It concludes by highlighting the need to hold open and to value the space of politicisation and contestation in the relationship between business and development, if business is to contribute to the more systemic and radical aspirations that underlie development. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]