Search results

This article aims to examine the sustainability of European and SADC states' practice of agreeing bilateral investment agreements (BITs) for the promotion and protection of foreign investments in light of the latter's recent inauguration of Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) as a basic norm of regional customary international law and strategy for countering the social and economic legacy of apartheid rule on their territories for over half a century.

The approach taken is textual analysis and deconstruction of emergent SADC BEE legislation, substantive BIT legislation provisions, dispute settlement mechanisms and emergent jurisprudence on the tensions between BEE policy and BIT obligations.

The strong elements of exclusivity between European/SADC BIT dispute settlement mechanisms on the one hand, and the “ouster clauses” of SADC BEE legislation and regulations on the other, are mutually incompatible. This incompatibility threatens the sustainability of the EU/SADC states' BIT dynamic for the promotion and protection of foreign direct investments (FDIs).

Demonstration of BEE as SADC's emergent basic norm of social reconstruction for countering the social and economic legacy of apartheid rule in affected states and implications of that for EU/SADC policy on the promotion and protection of FDIs.

The impact of apartheid, destabilization, and warfare in southern Africa has especially taken a severe and unimaginable toll on the future and life chances of children in the region. Prior to 1990 when a series of significant events changed the social and economic landscape of the sub-continent, a number of disturbing profiles and trends pointed to a desolate situation for children and women by most child welfare, household, poverty, education, and health indicators. As a result of massive underdevelopment compounded by war and economic destabilization for decades, only aggravated by colonialism and post-colonial policies, the health and welfare of children in southern Africa had reached tragic proportions.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss South Africa’s trajectory of socio-economic development since the advent of democracy a quarter century ago. This is done through a critical discussion and review of major policy interventions that have been implemented to achieve the goal of racial justice. The author argues that while the advent of democracy brought about significant opportunities for social justice, socio-economic development in South Africa has been characterised by increasing wealth and income inequality, which has undermined the cause of racial justice. The key argument the author advances in the paper is that the decline in the power resources of the working class and the poor accounts for the neoliberal turn in economic policy in South Africa.

The paper relies on primary policy documents of the government and on primary political and policy documents of the African National Congress and its political allies such as the Congress of South African Trade Unions and the South African Communist Party. The author also reviews the extensive literature on the subject of development policymaking in the new South Africa.

The main finding is that the advent of democracy a quarter century ago and the policy interventions by the government have brought about social progress in some areas. However, the colonial and apartheid domination still shapes access to social-economic opportunities in South Africa. In anything, income and wealth inequality has increased since 1994. The goal of racial justice appears far from being achieved.

The key implication arising from the research is that strengthening political organisations of the working class and the poor is critical to attaining the goal of social equity. This is particularly true in a context where elite interests in the state and the corporate sector have been ascendant for the past two decades.

What is original about the paper is that it is one of the first papers that assess the progress that has made in bringing about racial justice 25 years after the advent of democracy in South Africa. Furthermore, the paper uses the power resources theory to explain the dearth of pro-poor social reform in South Africa. This is a departure from the dominant approach, which explains the adoption of neoliberalism in South Africa as either inevitable due to poor economic performance or an outcome of the sell-out by the ANC political elite.

The purpose of the paper is to analyse the relationship between corporate social responsibility and the concept of Black economic empowerment in South Africa. The paper examines whether government interventions in the area of corporate social responsibility post‐1994 have been successful. The paper also assesses critically the level of voluntary commitment that businesses in South Africa have displayed in the area of corporate social responsibility.

Corporate social responsibility in South Africa pre‐1994 and post‐1994 is examined and compared. The Broad‐Based Black Economic Empowerment Act (2003), the new South African Companies Act (2008) and the King Codes of Corporate Governance Principles in South Africa are critiqued. A distinction is made between government and business corporate social responsibility initiatives.

The paper principally concludes that meaningful corporate social responsibility in the area of human rights can be better achieved if it is based on commitment and collaborative partnership.

The paper provides a basis for empirical research on corporate social responsibility and socio‐economic development in South Africa.

This paper adds to the growing discourse of academic literature that supports a strategic partnership‐based approach to corporate social responsibility.

Points out that it would be naïve to believe that democracy in itself will solve all South Africa’s problems. Also that the legacy of apartheid lives on and will continue to do so for many generations to come. Examines the socio‐economic restructuring of South Africa, looking at whether it will be possible to make amends for past injustices while not harming future economic development. Emphasizes the role of the welfare system in improving the quality of life of black South Africans and examines whether the welfare state is a feasible option.

The paper explores the historical evolution of employee voice in Namibia from an employment relations (ER) perspective and in the context of institutional factors such as labour legislation, trade union strategies, company policies and governmental regulations. The first part of the paper provides a brief outline of ER conceptions of voice that are manifest in the recent resurgence of interest in the topic. The next part traces the historical evolution of labour regulation and employee voice in Namibia. It is shown that, in the absence of collective voice and statutory protections, informal voice and occupational solidarity were the primary means of defence available to black workers against oppressive conditions. In the final part, an outline of some key features of employee voice in contemporary Namibia is provided. The analysis shows that systems of employee voice are fundamentally a manifestation of the balance of powers at a particular time and place. It is therefore crucial to link voice preferences and behaviours in the workplace to specific preconditions and to highlight the limiting factors that serve to constrain choice.

Presents findings from a case study looking at African medicine vendors in Durban, South Africa. Compares the culturally repressive apartheid period with the post‐apartheid explosion of self‐realization of the African population. Shows that street vending is still seen as an eyesore and a problem but still plays an important role in the post‐apartheid era as a form of resistance to simplistic African policies.

South Africa had formally introduced a policy of inflation targeting (IT) in February 2000. By December 2001, the governor of the South African Reserve Bank, after reading the latest statistics, was concerned with the disappointing economic data. Economic activity had slowed drastically, to the point that the country appeared to be heading for a recession. The gloomy statistics forced the governor to consider whether the country had pursued the right policy. Persistently high unemployment, one legacy of the apartheid era, meant that South Africa did not have the luxury of waiting for new policies to bear fruit. With the inflation forecast to exceed the mandated target, the governor would have to tighten monetary policy, which would further restrict investment. Was it is time for South Africa to change course?