LETTER: Feeble trade policies will deliver poor returns
03 October 2021 - 18:12
Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
I fully support Paul Matthew’s primary message concerning the incessant policy repetition and punitive measures against imports, which have produced little benefit (“Where is the dynamism in SA’s trade policy?”, September 29). However, trade policy is the lifeblood of the economy and if we support poor policies then we must expect poor returns.
As Matthew points out, the department of trade, industry & competition developed its trading philosophies on the formation of sectoral master plans underpinning growth of the agricultural and industrial sectors via intensive localisation drives.
Matthew’s organisation, the Association of Meat Importers & Exporters, is a signatory to the well-publicised poultry master plan, which lists as its first strategic objective the “insurance that locally produced product makes up an increasingly larger proportion of consumption over time”. This will be accompanied by “driving domestic demand” and “further trade measures to support local industry”.
The entire master plan is built around substantially expanding the local poultry industry by way of various forms of punitive tariffs. This is a huge threat to the future of the import industry, as meaningful growth in local poultry can only be subsidised by sizeable import reduction, a feature of all of trade, industry & competition minister Ebrahim Patel’s localisation-based master plans.
As Matthew himself points out, local manufacturers are depicted as the good guys and the importers as bad guys. We’ve all seen this show before. The outcome will be higher consumer prices and lower quality. Some lip service is paid to growing exports, but because of numerous obstacles such as price, water content and health certification problems, this is nothing more than a very long-term vague possibility.
The problem is that importers need to be principled and consistent. Being a signatory to a flawed master plan whose primary aim is to reduce your market share, which you recognise as unreasonable, unfair and ultimately unworkable (my description), is akin to turkeys voting for Christmas.
David Wolpert Rivonia
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an e-mail with your comments. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Send your letter by e-mail to letters@businesslive.co.za. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.
Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
LETTER: Feeble trade policies will deliver poor returns
I fully support Paul Matthew’s primary message concerning the incessant policy repetition and punitive measures against imports, which have produced little benefit (“Where is the dynamism in SA’s trade policy?”, September 29). However, trade policy is the lifeblood of the economy and if we support poor policies then we must expect poor returns.
As Matthew points out, the department of trade, industry & competition developed its trading philosophies on the formation of sectoral master plans underpinning growth of the agricultural and industrial sectors via intensive localisation drives.
Matthew’s organisation, the Association of Meat Importers & Exporters, is a signatory to the well-publicised poultry master plan, which lists as its first strategic objective the “insurance that locally produced product makes up an increasingly larger proportion of consumption over time”. This will be accompanied by “driving domestic demand” and “further trade measures to support local industry”.
The entire master plan is built around substantially expanding the local poultry industry by way of various forms of punitive tariffs. This is a huge threat to the future of the import industry, as meaningful growth in local poultry can only be subsidised by sizeable import reduction, a feature of all of trade, industry & competition minister Ebrahim Patel’s localisation-based master plans.
As Matthew himself points out, local manufacturers are depicted as the good guys and the importers as bad guys. We’ve all seen this show before. The outcome will be higher consumer prices and lower quality. Some lip service is paid to growing exports, but because of numerous obstacles such as price, water content and health certification problems, this is nothing more than a very long-term vague possibility.
The problem is that importers need to be principled and consistent. Being a signatory to a flawed master plan whose primary aim is to reduce your market share, which you recognise as unreasonable, unfair and ultimately unworkable (my description), is akin to turkeys voting for Christmas.
David Wolpert
Rivonia
JOIN THE DISCUSSION: Send us an e-mail with your comments. Letters of more than 300 words will be edited for length. Send your letter by e-mail to letters@businesslive.co.za. Anonymous correspondence will not be published. Writers should include a daytime telephone number.
PAUL MATTHEW: Where is the dynamism in SA’s trade policy?
WANDILE SIHLOBO: Trade policy is the rotten apple spoiling agricultural exports despite advances
Q&A: What’s happening with the African Continental Free Trade Area?
Patel says localisation drive will not derail Africa’s free trade deal
LUDOVICO SANGES: End import duties on hot rolled coil to be beneficiated for local market
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Most Read
Related Articles
LETTER: Let’s see the proof
Tariff undercutting fails poultry and cotton sectors
TELITA SNYCKERS: Patel’s opaque ‘master plans’ suit SA’s oligarchs — and few ...
Published by Arena Holdings and distributed with the Financial Mail on the last Thursday of every month except December and January.