SA's economic growth outlook growing increasingly dim
South Africa's economic outlook is growing increasingly dim as various organisations and analysts start cutting their economic growth outlook for the country to only 1.5%.
Moody's Ratings and the Bureau for Economic Research both cut South Africa's economic growth outlook to 1.5% from 2% expected previously, while Prof William Gumede, associate professor at the Wits School of Governance writes that National Treasury's gross domestic product (GDP) growth forecast of 1.9% in 2025 is based on optimistic assumptions.
According to Moody's Global Macro Outlook 2025-26, a global growth slowdown is underway, with policy uncertainty adding risks. The agency warns in its report that tariff increases on countries and high sectoral tariffs on products, such as steel and aluminium, will weigh on global trade and investment decisions, with considerably negative growth consequences for most G20 economies.
'Given these developments, we have cut our forecast for global growth sharply to 1.9% in 2025 and 2.3% in 2026 from our forecast in February, which called for a more modest slowdown to 2.5%. Policy uncertainty weighs on a global economy that was already slowing.
'Uncertainty surrounding global economic policies is likely to take a toll on consumer, business and financial activity. Despite a pause and reduction in some tariffs, policy uncertainty and trade tensions, especially between the US and China, are likely to dampen global trade and investment, with consequences across the G20.
ALSO READ: Experts say no way SA can achieve economic growth of 3% this year
Grim global and South African economic growth outlook
Moody's now expects that US GDP growth will cool to 1% in 2025 and 1.5% in 2026, and China's real GDP growth to slow to 3.8% in 2025 and 3.9% in 2026. The agency also cut growth forecasts for Canada, Mexico, Germany, France, Italy, the UK, Australia, Korea, Japan, India, Indonesia and South Africa.
For South Africa, Moody's cut its real GDP projections by 0.2% from its February projection to 1.5% and is more optimistic than the IMF, which expects South Africa's economy to grow by only 1% this year and only 1.3% in 2026.
Meanwhile, Lisette IJssel de Schepper, chief economist at the BER, said at a BER conference on Tuesday that South Africa's growth is also affected by tensions in the government of national unity (GNU) and concerns that it will not hold and function effectively after the dispute about Budget 2025 almost caused it to collapse.
However, she said the biggest source of uncertainty at the moment is around tariff policy. 'The risk of sudden policy changes remains real, such as Monday's foreign film tariff announcement. We only expect price increases and product shortages to affect US consumers from mid-June.'
She also pointed out that real consumer spending, which is necessary for economic growth, accelerated from 0.7% in 2023 to 1.0% in 2024, but consumers are still worse off in real per capita terms.
'Alarmingly, the 0.7% growth in consumer income in 2024 was virtually fully derived from the roughly R40 billion two-pot withdrawals since 1 September, and despite the two-pot boost in 2024, real per capita disposable income was down 1.3% compared to 2022 and 2.4% compared to 2018.'
ALSO READ: No significant economic growth expected for SA over next three years
Factors that can affect global and local economic growth
De Schepper said global factors that could warrant a change in the BER's baseline forecast include severe financial market instability that triggers a real economic downturn, a sudden reversal in the oil price and continuing geopolitical turmoil in the Russia-Ukraine war, the Middle East and the Taiwan Strait.
She said domestic factors include the return of sustained and/or higher stages of load shedding, negative shocks to South Africa's production capacity and/or export potential, the possibility of social unrest, protests and strike action and revisions to historic GDP data.
ALSO READ: Absa foresees economic growth of 2.1%, but Trump and budget can disrupt it
Are we a 1% economy?
De Schepper says the BER made a significant downward adjustment to its near- and medium-term real GDP forecast, with some members of the team arguing for an even lower forecast, questioning why we are not a permanent 1%-growth economy as we have been for the last fifteen years or so.
'It is irresponsible to build a forecast on hope. During the second half of 2024, there was a real sense of urgency around structural reform, sentiment was improving, and the consumer benefited from some (temporary) windfalls.
'Our forecast of the time was not based on hope, but on the expectation of some crucial puzzle pieces finally falling into place. Unfortunately, some puzzle pieces are now sliding from the table once again (slow progress on structural reform, consumer windfalls turning into headwinds), and some pieces have been forcefully thrown on the floor by Trump.'
However, she said, it is also irresponsible to overreact when there is so much uncertainty. 'While slow, there is still some progress on the structural reform front. Load shedding and other structural constraints on the local economy should continue to ease, albeit not as fast as we anticipated.
'Indeed, when it comes to exports and investment, our level is so depressed that a little goes a long way to lift overall GDP growth. South African consumers have proven to be resilient before, but will continue to be tested.'
ALSO READ: World Bank has simple answer to improve South Africa's economic growth
Treasury too optimistic about South African economic growth
Gumede writes in an occasional paper for the Inclusive Society Institute titled 'Going for growth: Structural reforms needed for South Africa's economic recovery', that Treasury's forecast fails to reflect the country's ongoing structural obstacles to growth, including its public service, governance, policy and debt woes.
'If South Africa stays on its current economic policy path or becomes more economically populist and if it is unable to strike a compromise deal with the US, it is unlikely to get even the 1.9% GDP economic growth predicted by Treasury in the 2024/2025 Budget.
'Treasury predicts real GDP growth of 1.9% in 2025, an upward revision from the 1.7% projected in the 2024 Medium Term Budget Policy Statement (MTBPS). Over the medium term, economic growth is projected to average 1.8%. The past decade has seen the economy grow only 0.8% per year, while the country's population has been growing at 1.5% per year.'
Gumede says the Treasury growth forecasts assume higher investment, recovery in household consumption, declining inflation, moderately rising employment, improving household balance sheets and easing structural constraints on growth. However, he believes Treasury's growth forecast appears to be overly optimistic.
ALSO READ: IMF's bad news about economic growth for SA, thanks to Trump tariffs
Treasury not considering continued obstacles to economic growth
'Treasury does not appear to consider the continued structural obstacles to growth, such as the continued lack of state capacity due to public service, state-owned entities (SOEs), infrastructure and municipal failures caused by corruption and incompetence and the many anti-growth policies.
'High levels of business regulation also undermine growth. Moreover, global uncertainties threaten economic growth. US President Donald Trump unleashed widespread global tariffs, including 30% against South Africa, and has cut development funding to the country.'
Gumede says the US withdrawal of development aid, which included significant amounts for state, public, and civil society institutions, left a big hole in South Africa's public finances.
'Instead of infrastructure-led growth, South Africa got consumer and welfare-led growth, which is not sustainable. It is not possible to change the country's growth path without tackling the structural inhibitors such as corruption, incompetence, state, SOE, DFI and municipal failure and anti-growth, anti-business policies.
'A new growth path must be based on boosting infrastructure, creating a manufacturing mining processing complex, especially around critical minerals, an agriculture industrial complex, expanding renewable energy, establishing a biofuels industry, expanding SMEs and fostering new industries that South Africa lacks, but which the world needs. Such a new growth path has to be collaboratively led by government, private sector, civil society and professionals.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
eNCA
an hour ago
- eNCA
SA industries brace for 30% USA import tariffs
JOHANNESBURG - South African businesses are in the brace position. The Donald Trump administration in the US says it plans to impose a 30% tariff on exports from South Africa to America and, without a deal, this scenario is set to take effect on August the 1st.
IOL News
2 hours ago
- IOL News
Ethics in the grey zone: governing conflicts of interest with courage
Though the award process to Sizekhaya Holdings may have complied with legal requirements, the absence of visible and transparent disclosures around these relationships undermined trust. In governance, perception matters. Poor or absent disclosure damages legitimacy, even without legal fault. Image: Cape Argus By Nqobani Mzizi In governance, few terms provoke as much unease as "conflict of interest". It conjures images of overt corruption, self-dealing and backroom deals. Yet in many boardrooms, the more dangerous form is covert and subtle. It emerges not through criminality but convenience, not through law-breaking but ethical lapses that thrive in silence and passivity. These are the conflicts that live in the grey zone. We often associate conflicts of interest with clear-cut wrongdoing: a director awarding a tender to their own company, a regulator sitting on a board they're meant to oversee. But many conflicts are more nuanced. They live in assumptions we don't question, relationships we don't declare, and benefits we don't probe. Often, they hide in plain sight: in annual declaration forms submitted as routine or meeting registers listing interests without discussion or follow-up. These processes, meant to enable transparency, become hollow rituals without meaningful engagement and ethical reflection. Grey-zone conflicts are not always compliance failures; they are ethical blind spots where governance falters under silence, ambiguity, or convenience. They are technically compliant but ethically compromised. They flourish where disclosure is absent, recusal is performative, and boards look the other way, not because they condone wrongdoing, but because they've normalised ambiguity. It is here, in the comfort of procedure without principle, that governance erodes. King IV recognises this risk. South African law requires declaration of personal financial interests and sets fiduciary duties, but King IV Principles 1 and 5 go further, calling for ethical and effective leadership beyond legal minimalism. A director may comply with the law but betray governance's spirit by failing to disclose a relationship or by participating in decisions blurred by personal gain. When Sizekhaya Holdings was awarded the fourth National Lottery licence in 2025, public concern quickly surfaced over the perceived political connections of its leadership, including ties to relatives of senior government officials. Though the award process may have complied with legal requirements, the absence of visible and transparent disclosures around these relationships undermined trust. In governance, perception matters. Poor or absent disclosure damages legitimacy, even without legal fault. At the Airports Company South Africa (Acsa), CEO Mpumi Mpofu came under fire for alleged misrepresentation of academic qualifications and awarding bonuses to executives during financial strain. With service providers unpaid and operational performance under scrutiny, the optics of bonuses raised ethical questions. Although no formal charges were brought, the board's failure to address these concerns reflected a worrying tolerance for ethical ambiguity: a grey zone where silence replaced scrutiny. The Steinhoff International scandal, known for accounting fraud, also revealed subtle but corrosive conflicts of interest. Executives linked to related-party transactions personally benefited from inflated financial results. Despite this, the board did not act urgently. It failed to question transactions, investigate relationships, or push for disclosure. The board's deference to executive authority, whether out of loyalty, deference, or inertia, allowed personal interest to override fiduciary duty, shifting oversight to complicity. These cases show governance failures need not involve overt misconduct. Sometimes, it is the cumulative effect of quiet compromises: undisclosed affiliations, soft recusal, where directors nominally step aside without meaningful disengagement, and silence under pressure that unravels institutional integrity. The Steinhoff scandal, like the cases of Sizekhaya and Acsa, reveals a pattern: grey-zone conflicts thrive where boards privilege process over principle. They are not isolated failures but systemic symptoms of a governance culture that rewards silence over scrutiny. To break this cycle, boards must reframe conflicts of interest as strategic governance moments, not bureaucratic disclosures to file away. They must take an uncompromising stance on ethical ambiguity, recognising that every potential conflict is an opportunity to demonstrate ethical clarity and transparent leadership. This mindset demands more than compliance; it requires courage. Disclosure practices must be strengthened. Too often, boards limit declarations to statutory interests or ownership stakes, ignoring broader context. Personal, familial, or political affiliations that may create perceived bias must be declared and discussed openly. Some argue excessive scrutiny risks paralysing decision-making. Yet the greater danger lies in inaction disguised as pragmatism. Boards that tolerate grey-zone conflicts to avoid 'overcomplication' ultimately erode the very currency of governance: trust. Boards must create environments where over-disclosure is encouraged, not penalised. Oversight mechanisms must be more robust and independent. Conflict reviews should not be managed by internal structures reporting to those under scrutiny. Independent ethics committees with external expertise can depoliticise assessments. But structures alone are insufficient without cultural change. Boards must adopt zero tolerance toward grey-zone conflicts, where even perceived compromised judgment triggers recusal, not just legal violations. Ethical behaviour must be incentivised, not incidental. Executive performance metrics often focus on profitability, growth, or shareholder value. But ethical governance should be tied to performance evaluations and bonus structures. Stakeholder trust, reputational stewardship and ethical conduct must carry weight in boardroom remuneration decisions. Finally, governance culture must prioritise values over vagueness. It is not enough to have conflict of interest policies on paper. Boards must actively pose ethical questions, encourage critical reflection and normalise discomfort. A culture that rewards candour, curiosity and dissent is one that builds long-term resilience and trust. Ethical governance lives in the gap between law and leadership. Conflict of interest is not merely a legal risk; it is a test of character. It demands more than checklists and compliance registers. It demands boards and executives who are willing to declare their interests fully, recuse themselves meaningfully and interrogate decisions with integrity. As directors, we must ask ourselves: Are we fostering a boardroom culture that prioritises disclosure over defensiveness? Are we willing to challenge colleagues when grey-zone decisions arise? Do we understand the reputational cost of passive complicity? Are we prepared to act with courage when conflict surfaces, or will we hide behind process? In an era of rising public scrutiny and stakeholder activism, governance legitimacy will not be earned by technical compliance. It will be earned by ethical clarity. And that clarity is forged in the grey zones, where the law is silent, but leadership must speak. Nqobani Mzizi is a Professional Accountant (SA), (IoDSA) and an Academic. Image: Supplied * Nqobani Mzizi is a Professional Accountant (SA), (IoDSA) and an Academic. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media. BUSINESS REPORT
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Mercedes' East London production pause highlights urgent need to transform automotive industry
Mercedes-Benz has the red light on at its East London plant for July. If we don't start making electric cars soon, temporary closures could become permanent along with thousands of jobs lost. Last month, Mercedes-Benz South Africa halted operations at its East London manufacturing plant for the entire month of July. While the company insists this is 'standard procedure' and typical maintenance scheduling, the timing reveals a more troubling narrative. The East London factory has been assembling cars since 1958. Now, this important outpost has gone silent. The perfect storm The shutdown may well be connected to escalating trade tensions initiated by US President Donald Trump's April announcement of 25% tariffs on automotive imports, tariffs that have since intensified to 30% last week. These protectionist measures significantly undermine the economic viability of exporting locally manufactured vehicles, such as the Mercedes-Benz C-Class sedans produced in East London, to the United States, one of South Africa's five largest automotive export markets. However, the challenges extend beyond tariff barriers. South Africa's automotive sector faces diminishing global appetite for traditional internal combustion engine vehicles, as international markets increasingly transition toward electrification. This structural shift threatens similar production curtailments, regardless of trade policy considerations. The global shift is unstoppabl e The future is unequivocal: the global automotive industry is transitioning toward zero-emission mobility in response to tightening worldwide vehicle emission regulations. South Africa's automotive sector remains locked in first gear during this global transformation, with predominantly petrol and diesel-based production and limited hybrid manufacturing. Despite sustained engagement from local manufacturers and industry bodies stretching back years, South Africa's automotive policy is lacking alignment with progressive global markets. Only in 2026 will car manufacturers establishing new investments qualify for tax incentives for producing 'new-energy vehicles'. Here lies the fundamental problem: it takes approximately seven years for automotive manufacturing cycles for new models. What will the global market look like by then? This production pause isn't merely a difficult month for East London's economy — it's a warning signal for the entire South African automotive industry. Consider this: in January 2024, Ethiopia announced an immediate ban on petrol and diesel car imports, a global first signalling regulatory change across developing markets. South Africa's primary car export markets in Europe and the UK have firmed 2035 and 2030 as their respective bans on petrol and diesel car imports. The revolution was televised Globally, electric cars aren't some distant trend but today's reality. The past seven years have witnessed nearly 800% growth in passenger electric car sales. From Norway to China, car buyers increasingly choose electric over internal combustion engines — driven not necessarily by sustainability ambitions, but by direct financial benefits. Automakers like Volkswagen, Ford, and BMW are investing tens of billions into electric car production lines worldwide. Mercedes-Benz, the very company halting production in East London, has declared its intention to go all-electric by decade's end in markets where conditions permit. Carbon taxes will devastate our exports The European Union (EU) has introduced the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, a carbon tariff that imposes levies on goods exported to the EU based on production emissions. South Africa's carbon-intensive industrial sector will pay dearly. The automotive industry represents our largest manufacturing sector, with Europe as its primary customer. Approximately 75% of locally manufactured cars are shipped abroad, with the EU consuming 60% of this output. Under the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, internal combustion engine models and associated components will face additional costs that make them less competitive compared with electric alternatives manufactured elsewhere. It's a lose-lose situation: either already financially strained car makers absorb the cost, or they lose customers. We have the raw materials The transition to electric cars isn't a threat but an opportunity. Southern Africa possesses abundant raw materials such as manganese and nickel, essential for lithium batteries. What we lack is political action and market supply side policies mandating manufacturers to locally produce affordable electric cars for local, regional, and international markets. Mercedes-Benz South Africa's July shutdown should serve as the warning light demanding political action to accelerate progressive policies such as fuel efficiency standards and vehicle emission standards to shape domestic markets, while critically providing manufacturing incentives across the value chain towards localisation. No time to coast Thankfully, the Mercedes-Benz plant isn't closing permanently, and hopefully this costly downtime will be used to realign toward zero-emission vehicle technologies under incoming CEO Abey Kgotle. If the East London plant doesn't start moving toward that future, it risks being excluded from the group's long-term plans entirely. The same applies to Volkswagen in Uitenhage, Toyota in Durban, and all other manufacturers. These companies participate in global supply chains now oriented around decarbonisation. If they don't meet new global standards, South Africa won't make the cut. South Africa boasts a strong automotive legacy, celebrating 100 years of the industry in 2024. But legacy isn't a business model, and nostalgia doesn't pay salaries. We stand at a crossroads, and the road forward is toward zero-emission cars. If we fail to act, July's pause may become August's retrenchments and next year's closures. If we seize this moment, however, we can ensure South Africa becomes not merely a producer of cars, but a global hub for the sustainable mobility revolution. The Mercedes plant's pause should be a wake-up call to policymakers for critical action. The question isn't whether the transition will happen, but whether South Africa will be part of it. DM
