Small business, big future: What will the economy do for entrepreneurs?
SMME Day should not be a ritual nod to entrepreneurs. It should be a reckoning. A moment to ask not what more small business can do for the economy, but what the economy is willing to do for them, says the author.
Image: File
June 27 marks International SMME Day, a moment intended to recognise the contributions of small businesses to national economies.
In South Africa, this day, if we are honest with ourselves, is actually less about celebration and more about confronting hard and uncomfortable truths. Despite being repeatedly described as the backbone of our economy, small businesses continue to face conditions that are anything but supportive. The contradiction between policy rhetoric and lived reality is stark.
Small, micro, and medium-sized enterprises are expected to carry the weight of job creation in a country where the expanded unemployment rate hovers above 43%, and youth unemployment exceeds 46%.
Let's not quibble about definitions - but these figures are not mere data points, they reflect a broken promise of a better life for all. They reveal an economic system that closes more doors than it opens, particularly for those trying to build businesses from the ground up. Across the country, small business owners navigate a daily struggle through unreliable electricity, decaying infrastructure, slow payments from state institutions, limited access to finance, and a policy environment that is too often performative.
In theory, our market economy rewards innovation and risk-taking. In practice, it rewards incumbency and inherited advantage. Markets do not design themselves. They reflect decisions, who sets the rules, who benefits from them, and who gets excluded. In South Africa, we continue to treat the economy as if it were neutral, as if it were untouched by history. But the economic terrain is uneven, shaped by generations of exclusion. Small businesses are told to compete, to innovate, to absorb unemployment, while carrying the burden of systemic dysfunction that they did not create.
The state, while well-meaning in policy documents, often underperforms where it matters most. Implementation. Red tape is reduced in speeches, not in reality. Support schemes are announced, yet the delivery is wanting. Entrepreneurs spend more time navigating bureaucracy than growing their businesses. Plans such as the National Development Plan and small business development funds look good on paper and yet the reality is it remains out of reach for most, especially those in rural and township communities.
This failure is not just administrative. It is ethical. At its core, it raises a question of fairness. Do these business owners receive a return that matches what they put in? For many, the answer is no. They invest capital they can barely spare, work relentlessly, and still face barriers that have nothing to do with effort or talent. Roads are broken, electricity unreliable, and government institutions often unresponsive. The playing field is not just tilted it is actively stacked against them.
At the same time, large businesses continue to operate with insulation from these realities. Their supply chains remain exclusive; their transformation commitments often reduced to checkbox exercises. Supplier development is treated as obligation, not opportunity. While procurement frameworks nominally include small businesses, the real value often flows to the same few players. Too many corporates confuse compliance with contribution, and mentoring with meaningful inclusion.
We must ask harder questions about who holds power in our economy, and why they continue to do so. True economic inclusion requires structural change, not surface adjustments. It requires a shift in values towards recognising that small business is not a charity case or a backup plan for unemployment. It is a central pillar of innovation, dignity, and community stability.
Black Economic Empowerment, in its original form, was a bold attempt to correct the imbalances of the past. But its spirit has been diluted. It is now often misused as a political talking point or reduced to bureaucratic compliance and complaints of reverse discrimination. The problem though is not with the tool itself; it lies in how we have chosen to apply it. When transformation is gamed, fronting tolerated, and true access to opportunity remains limited, we have to admit that the practice has drifted far from the principle.
Part of this failure traces back to the early days of our democracy. In the political negotiations of the 1990s, South Africa secured the vote but relinquished meaningful leverage over the economy. Economic power, ownership, capital, and institutional control, remained largely untouched. While the Constitution enshrined rights, the structure of the economy remained shaped by old interests. What followed was a democratic state tasked with redistributive justice but with few tools to restructure entrenched inequality.
The result is a transformation agenda that operates within the confines of an inherited system. We asked the economy to include the excluded without reconfiguring who holds the keys. It was, in effect, a freedom with limits, political representation without economic reconstruction.
Equally dangerous is the continued peddling of the myth that economic freedom can exist independently of social and political freedom. A market that is free for some and closed for others is not a free market at all, it is a rigged game. Growth that enriches the few while excluding the many is not development; it is stagnation disguised as success.
South Africa has no shortage of entrepreneurial talent. What it lacks is an ecosystem that recognises and rewards it. Until small businesses are built into corporate value chains, until public institutions are held accountable for timely payments, until financial systems start assessing potential rather than pedigree, we will continue to fall short of our national potential.
SMME Day should not be a ritual nod to entrepreneurs. It should be a reckoning. A moment to ask not what more small business can do for the economy, but what the economy is willing to do for them. Praise means nothing without power. Recognition means nothing without reform.
Small businesses are not asking for handouts. They are asking for fairness. They are asking for a seat at the table they help to build. And if we are serious about a future that is inclusive, stable, and just, then it is time for both government and big business to answer that call with action.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

IOL News
a day ago
- IOL News
Small business, big future: What will the economy do for entrepreneurs?
SMME Day should not be a ritual nod to entrepreneurs. It should be a reckoning. A moment to ask not what more small business can do for the economy, but what the economy is willing to do for them, says the author. Image: File June 27 marks International SMME Day, a moment intended to recognise the contributions of small businesses to national economies. In South Africa, this day, if we are honest with ourselves, is actually less about celebration and more about confronting hard and uncomfortable truths. Despite being repeatedly described as the backbone of our economy, small businesses continue to face conditions that are anything but supportive. The contradiction between policy rhetoric and lived reality is stark. Small, micro, and medium-sized enterprises are expected to carry the weight of job creation in a country where the expanded unemployment rate hovers above 43%, and youth unemployment exceeds 46%. Let's not quibble about definitions - but these figures are not mere data points, they reflect a broken promise of a better life for all. They reveal an economic system that closes more doors than it opens, particularly for those trying to build businesses from the ground up. Across the country, small business owners navigate a daily struggle through unreliable electricity, decaying infrastructure, slow payments from state institutions, limited access to finance, and a policy environment that is too often performative. In theory, our market economy rewards innovation and risk-taking. In practice, it rewards incumbency and inherited advantage. Markets do not design themselves. They reflect decisions, who sets the rules, who benefits from them, and who gets excluded. In South Africa, we continue to treat the economy as if it were neutral, as if it were untouched by history. But the economic terrain is uneven, shaped by generations of exclusion. Small businesses are told to compete, to innovate, to absorb unemployment, while carrying the burden of systemic dysfunction that they did not create. The state, while well-meaning in policy documents, often underperforms where it matters most. Implementation. Red tape is reduced in speeches, not in reality. Support schemes are announced, yet the delivery is wanting. Entrepreneurs spend more time navigating bureaucracy than growing their businesses. Plans such as the National Development Plan and small business development funds look good on paper and yet the reality is it remains out of reach for most, especially those in rural and township communities. This failure is not just administrative. It is ethical. At its core, it raises a question of fairness. Do these business owners receive a return that matches what they put in? For many, the answer is no. They invest capital they can barely spare, work relentlessly, and still face barriers that have nothing to do with effort or talent. Roads are broken, electricity unreliable, and government institutions often unresponsive. The playing field is not just tilted it is actively stacked against them. At the same time, large businesses continue to operate with insulation from these realities. Their supply chains remain exclusive; their transformation commitments often reduced to checkbox exercises. Supplier development is treated as obligation, not opportunity. While procurement frameworks nominally include small businesses, the real value often flows to the same few players. Too many corporates confuse compliance with contribution, and mentoring with meaningful inclusion. We must ask harder questions about who holds power in our economy, and why they continue to do so. True economic inclusion requires structural change, not surface adjustments. It requires a shift in values towards recognising that small business is not a charity case or a backup plan for unemployment. It is a central pillar of innovation, dignity, and community stability. Black Economic Empowerment, in its original form, was a bold attempt to correct the imbalances of the past. But its spirit has been diluted. It is now often misused as a political talking point or reduced to bureaucratic compliance and complaints of reverse discrimination. The problem though is not with the tool itself; it lies in how we have chosen to apply it. When transformation is gamed, fronting tolerated, and true access to opportunity remains limited, we have to admit that the practice has drifted far from the principle. Part of this failure traces back to the early days of our democracy. In the political negotiations of the 1990s, South Africa secured the vote but relinquished meaningful leverage over the economy. Economic power, ownership, capital, and institutional control, remained largely untouched. While the Constitution enshrined rights, the structure of the economy remained shaped by old interests. What followed was a democratic state tasked with redistributive justice but with few tools to restructure entrenched inequality. The result is a transformation agenda that operates within the confines of an inherited system. We asked the economy to include the excluded without reconfiguring who holds the keys. It was, in effect, a freedom with limits, political representation without economic reconstruction. Equally dangerous is the continued peddling of the myth that economic freedom can exist independently of social and political freedom. A market that is free for some and closed for others is not a free market at all, it is a rigged game. Growth that enriches the few while excluding the many is not development; it is stagnation disguised as success. South Africa has no shortage of entrepreneurial talent. What it lacks is an ecosystem that recognises and rewards it. Until small businesses are built into corporate value chains, until public institutions are held accountable for timely payments, until financial systems start assessing potential rather than pedigree, we will continue to fall short of our national potential. SMME Day should not be a ritual nod to entrepreneurs. It should be a reckoning. A moment to ask not what more small business can do for the economy, but what the economy is willing to do for them. Praise means nothing without power. Recognition means nothing without reform. Small businesses are not asking for handouts. They are asking for fairness. They are asking for a seat at the table they help to build. And if we are serious about a future that is inclusive, stable, and just, then it is time for both government and big business to answer that call with action.

SowetanLIVE
a day ago
- SowetanLIVE
From gap to growth: tangible shifts in SMME funding
We know that SMMEs are engine drivers in SA's economy and job creation. The World Bank forecasts that four out of five new jobs over the next 15 years will be created by SMMEs, while the National Development Plan projects they'll contribute up to 80% of SA's GDP by 2030. A staggering proportion considering that this segment of the economy is largely underserved. Positively, there are more funding solutions available now than there ever have been before. And as more funding options become available it is vital that education around securing relevant funding from reputable financiers is prioritised. Websites such as Finfind assist in securing the right kind of help from credible providers, and organisations such as SME SA and the Gauteng Enterprise Propeller provide mentorship, training, access and business assistance to small business owners. The National Financial Literacy Association plays a key role in addressing the challenge of financial literacy and inadequate record-keeping through impactful, data-driven initiatives. More businesses are also investing in the SMME sector to drive change among entrepreneurs. This was emphasised in the support of young business owners over Youth Month, contributing to the 30% of SMME owners under the age of 35. Future-focused finance solutions There are many alternative solutions available to SMMEs, but knowing what to choose and why is where many business owners fall short. Digitised options that are focused on the opportunity rather than credit history are where alternative providers are delivering impact-driven financing in a way that meets the needs of SMMEs. Traditional lenders, like commercial banks, have expanded SMME product offerings and many are running tailor-made programmes targeted at business owners across crucial sectors such as agriculture and retail. Fintechs like Sourcefin offer fast, tech-enabled solutions that can deliver fast capital that supports the entrepreneur along their business journey, and blended finance models are becoming more common. When it comes to alternative solutions, revenue-based funding is gaining popularity, enabling SMMEs to grow and build with the backing of invested capital for a percentage of earnings. Similarly, merchant cash advances offer lending through point of sale, unlocking funds that are paid back to the lender at each transaction. For those requiring a large amount of capital to fulfil tenders or contracts, purchase order funding is a valuable solution that pays suppliers upfront, releasing SMMEs from the financial constraints that may be experienced due to insufficient cash flow or inventory. This solution should be structured to ensure that the lender is only repaid once the order has been paid by the borrower's customer, so that any profits can be reinvested back into growing the business. In addition, invoice discounting provides a forward-focused solution that unlocks funding (usually determined as a percentage of the invoice value), which is paid directly to the SMME who may be required to wait 30, 60, or even 90 days for payment from their client. Generally, interest is charged on the capital outlay, but structures vary depending on the needs of the business and the lender. Reformed regulations to public-private partnerships Regulatory bottlenecks and procurement barriers continue to stifle small businesses, but there is hope. In the recent budget speech, the finance minister Enoch Godongwana outlined a fiscal strategy focused on unlocking infrastructure investment and stimulating economic growth.

IOL News
3 days ago
- IOL News
Why the Gini coefficient remains crucial for understanding inequality
The Gini coefficient is not the full story of inequality in South Africa, but it remains an important chapter. Image: Ron AI THE rubric of robust statistical measures is essential for evaluating policies and plans within the context of democratic governance. A RECENT Sunday Independent article questions the relevance of the Gini coefficient as a measure of inequality in South Africa, describing it as outdated, narrow, and even politically manipulative. It argues that the Gini fails to account for social grants, informal economies, and the growing black middle class, concluding that we must retire it and replace it with a new, locally informed metric. The critique is welcome and necessary. As Statistician-General, I support public scrutiny of the tools we use to measure our society. But I caution against discarding useful instruments because they are imperfect. The Gini coefficient is not the full story of inequality in South Africa, but it remains an important chapter. Developed in the early 20th century, the Gini coefficient is a single statistic that indicates how evenly (or unevenly) income or wealth is distributed. It is widely used by national and international bodies, especially in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly Goal 10, which focuses on reducing inequalities. This commitment is reflected in Agenda 2063, the African Union's (AU's) socio-economic transformation plan. It is embedded in South Africa's National Development Plan (NDP), which aims to reduce our Gini from 0.69 to 0.60 by 2030. The article makes a valid point: inequality is complex, and no single measure can capture it all. The Gini does not reflect the value of the 'social wage' — free education, healthcare, grants, housing subsidies — and may undercount informal economic activity. But it is not meant to measure everything. It is one tool among many, and it tells us something important: South Africa remains one of the most unequal societies in the world, even if we have made real progress in reducing poverty. As a statistician, I use it as part of my statistical toolkit. Statistical measures are essential for data analysis and informed decision-making, revealing patterns and trends. In his 2005 paper, Aziz Othman emphasises that effective policies rely on quality data. There is a growing shift among governments and organisations from opinion-based to evidence-based policy, underscoring the need for credible statistical analysis in policy formulation. National statistical agencies in the United Kingdom and Australia also produce Gini coefficient statistics relevant to their contexts. This highlights the importance of continuous monitoring of income inequality and the integration of statistical methods into policymaking, as discussed in Othman's paper. With more than 30 years of experience in producing official statistics at both national and continental levels, I have come to understand that poverty and inequality are complex issues that span social, economic, and political dimensions. This complexity shows that a single measure cannot fully capture these challenges. Thus, using various statistical methods is essential. Statistics SA (Stats SA) employs three main approaches to assess poverty: traditional money-metric measures based on national poverty lines, multidimensional methods like the SA Multidimensional Poverty Index (Sampi) and Child Multiple Overlapping Deprivation Analysis (Moda), along with subjective assessments that reflect personal views of poverty. Similarly, in analysing inequality, the Gini coefficient is but one of several metrics used by Stats SA to quantify economic disparities. Additional indicators include inequality experts Henri Theil's indices, Anthony Atkinson's indices, and Alex Sumner's Palma ratio. Each of these measures possesses distinct strengths and weaknesses, yet all are widely recognised and used by National Statistical Offices (NSOs) and scholars globally to elucidate the structure and magnitude of inequality within a nation. It is important to note that the Gini coefficient facilitates understanding income and expenditure distributions across households rather than functioning as an all-encompassing indicator of inequality, contrary to what the article may imply. Furthermore, additional measures based on asset data, service delivery data, and labour market information produced by Stats SA are also useful for understanding the broader issue of inequality beyond economic indicators such as the Gini coefficient. The simplest approach to measuring income inequality involves segmenting the population or households into quintiles, ranging from the poorest to the richest, and analysing the distribution of income or expenditure across these segments. Recent Income and Expenditure Survey (IES) results indicate that about 75% of white-headed households are within the upper income quintile. Conversely, nearly half (45.1%) of black African-headed households fall within the lowest two quintiles in terms of income. Similar trends are observed in expenditure, where about 45.3% of black African-headed households are also categorised within the bottom two expenditure quintiles. This data underscores the significant disparities in economic status between these demographic groups. The findings illustrate a significant disparity in income and expenditure per capita, clearly highlighting the entrenched income inequality in South Africa, particularly affecting black African-headed households. Notably, nearly 57% of households within the lowest income quintile are female-headed. However, this proportion diminishes across the quintiles, with 49.5% of the second quintile, 42.9% in the third, 34.5% in the fourth, and only 33.5% in the upper quintile. This decreasing representation of female-headed households in higher quintiles underscores the persistent issue of gender inequality within the socio-economic landscape. South Africa has extensive survey data on individual and household welfare from Stats SA, which offers various indicators of poverty and inequality.