Last week, the government published the national infrastructure plan as part of its efforts to stimulate the economy beyond the current coronavirus pandemic.
There is plenty to be applauded in the plan, especially as a starting point for a much-needed conversation about the structure, form, size and complexion of a future SA economy.
The plan – for the hard and digital infrastructure – has two parts: first, short- to medium term projects; and second, long-term projects.
There is no doubt that we need a massive investment in our infrastructure. We are not the only ones – legislators in the US, the world’s largest economy, are negotiating a $3-trillion infrastructure package as part of strengthening the economic recovery currently under way.
For our part, we need new all-weather roads and bridges, clean energy plants, modern dams and, more importantly, we need to rehabilitate our existing infrastructure, which is crumbling at a fast rate.
We also need bigger ports, freight rail and roads to move goods around the country, and across the continent as part of exploiting opportunities from the African Continental Free Trade Area – a single market of 1.3bn people and a gross domestic product (GDP) of $3.4-trillion.
Over the past few years, our public infrastructure has been deteriorating. In part, this is why communities are venting their frustrations through public protests that sometimes turn violent.
Also, over the past few years, investment in infrastructure has been progressively falling. The national development plan has a target of 30% infrastructure investment of GDP by 2030. We are most likely going to miss this target.
To its credit, the government acknowledges that it cannot roll out the programme on its own; it will require a partnership with the private sector especially around the financing of such an ambitious plan. This is especially important because our country has a sad history of large infrastructure projects suffering from huge cost and schedule overruns.
The implementation of the plan is an opportunity to address our unemployment crisis, especially among the black African youth.
For the plan to succeed, it needs to also talk to other public policy goals such as inclusive growth, black economic empowerment, promote growth of small and medium-sized enterprises, industrialisation and localisation.
The programme should not just be a festival of large corporations and multinationals; otherwise, it will defeat the goal of inclusive growth.
Big business should forge strategic partnerships between large construction companies and small players. Similarly, large white-owned businesses should tie up with their black peers.
These links should go beyond enterprise and supplier development (ESD) arrangements. It is now becoming evident that ESD arrangements are blunt tools in achieving sustainable growth of smaller companies other than the industry of ESD practitioners.
Inclusive growth is about ensuring that no-one is left behind.
The implementation of the infrastructure plan is also an opportunity to empower emerging black asset managers to participate alongside big players.
For a while now, government, labour, business and civil society have been talking about bolstering industrialisation through localisation. But this commitment has yet to translate into measurable and impactful actions. Only two departments – trade, industry and competition and small business development – appear to have real strategies in this regard. The two departments have designated certain products for localisation. This noble effort has been met with cynicism, criticism and resistance.
The government should stand its ground as it rolls out the infrastructure plan. It should insist on localisation.
Local communities – from wards, townships and villages, districts and regions – should be involved as suppliers to the maintenance projects, and as the ones to build new schools, clinics and roads and bridges. If they are excluded, this will breed resentment and anger among communities.
As a matter of urgency, the government needs to resolve the impasse around the release of high-demand spectrum. The courts are arbiters of disputes but they are not policymakers. It’s government's responsibility to make policies that help it achieve its socioeconomic objectives.
The allocation of new spectrum is an opportunity to stimulate competition for the benefit of consumers. If the ultimate allocation parameters favour the entrenchment of the current telecommunications duopoly, it would have failed South Africans.
Finally, the government has to be commended for its willingness to listen to other perspectives by inviting public comments on its draft infrastructure plan.
- Zungu is founder and chairperson of Zungu Investments Company, which owns AmaZulu Football Club
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.