Sarb's potential shift to 3% inflation target could benefit South African economy
Image: File
Economists have concurred that the South African Reserve Bank (Sarb) could help lower the borrowing costs, boost investor confidence, and economic growth by reducing its inflation targeting to 3% per annum.
This comes as discussions have emerged regarding whether South Africa's current inflation target midpoint of 4.5% is consistent with price stability and whether adjusting it to a lower rate might help secure the current trend of low inflation
Analyses undertaken by the Sarb, the National Treasury, and other experts highlight significant potential benefits from reducing the inflation target to 3%.
Recent comments from the Sarb about potentially lowering the inflation target led market participants to recalibrate inflation expectations downward.
According to the Bank of America (BofA) Global Research's latest South Africa Viewpoint on Monday, there is more to gain and less to lose by moving to 3% inflation target.
'We think moving to 3% is almost certain. The Sarb would not have intensified its desire if it did not have buy-in - at least in private if not publicly. Markets would not have reacted positively if the moves were in doubt,' said Tatonga Rusike, BofA's sub-Saharan Africa economist.
'An announcement could be made with the concurrence of the finance minister at either of the upcoming MPC meeting(s) - the Mid-term Budget presentation in October or the Budget 2026 presentation in February. Inflation is already benign and does not require the Sarb to change its current rate cycle.
'Other than influencing expectations through moral suasion, work still needs to be done in publishing the advantages of the 3% inflation target to the non-technical public, price setters and labour unions.
South Africa moved from 3-6% to a 4.5% mid-point target in 2017. Reaching it was helped by central bank credibility and supportive supply-side factors - low oil and food prices.
The Brent oil price averaged $63 per barrel between 2017 and 2019 while food inflation averaged 7% in 2017, 3.2% in 2018 and 3.1% in 2019.
This made it easier to reach 4.5% and the central bank was cutting the policy rate through the cycle.
Earlier this year, Sarb Governor Lesetja Kgayango said one particular issue that both advanced and emerging market economies grappled with was making sure that their targets were efficient and aligned with clear and practical definitions of 'price stability'.
'Most advanced economies have settled on maintaining inflation targets at 2%, while emerging markets are closer to the 3% mark,' Kganyago said. 'Early adopters of inflation targeting have updated their frameworks to better reflect changing realities on the ground, with Armenia being the latest central bank to also reduce its target to 3%.'
In its latest annual report, the Sarb said the 'main concern with South African inflation is not our ability to hit the target. Rather, it is that our target is high compared to other countries.'
The bank said although an inflation rate of 4.5% may seem moderate, it still causes prices to double every 16 years, and this is hard to reconcile with its constitutional obligation to safeguard the value of the currency.
Investec chief economist, Annabel Bishop, said concurred with the advocacy for a lower inflation target, asserting that such a move would foster a more advantageous interest rate environment.
'A persistently lower rate of inflation would result in a lower interest rate environment which in turn would benefit the economy, the bond market and consumers. At 3% year-on-year inflation the neutral interest rate would be 5% not 6.5% with inflation at 4.5% year-on-year,' Bishop said.
'In addition, higher than expected tax collections would allow for a reduction in the fiscal deficit and so could reduce the borrowing requirement, again positive for the bond outcome, although the market has largely adopted a wait and see attitude.'
BUSINESS REPORT
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
GNU must take blame for not acting to avert imposition of Trump's exorbitant tariffs
The recent decision by US President Donald Trump to increase tariffs from 10% to 30% on most South African imports, effective this past Friday, 1 August 2025, is a damning indictment of our foreign policy shortcomings. At the heart of this unfolding crisis is the African Growth and Opportunity Act (Agoa), which for nearly 25 years has given South African goods duty-free access to US markets. In 2023, more than $3-billion worth of exports flowed to the US under Agoa, sustaining jobs and livelihoods in key industries such as automotive manufacturing, agriculture, and mining. It's difficult to overstate just how beneficial Agoa has been. The US is South Africa's second-largest export market, and Agoa alone accounts for more than $2-billion in exports annually. Entire value chains are built on this preferential access. This has resulted in tens of thousands of jobs created and maintained in export-related industries, especially in the automotive and agricultural sectors. Yet, what once felt like abstract diplomatic tensions have now resulted in exorbitant tariff hikes that could wipe out margins for exporters and put thousands of jobs at risk across key sectors — from citrus and wine to auto manufacturing and metals. While some may point fingers at an increasingly protectionist White House, the Government of National Unity (GNU) must accept responsibility for what is in most parts a self-inflicted wound. Those in the GNU say that jobs and the economy are their number one priority. But when it came to protecting one of our largest export markets and tens of thousands of South African jobs, they sat on their hands and watched the tariffs roll in. This diplomatic misstep will be measured in job losses, declining export revenue, and dwindling investor confidence. Instead of strategic engagement, disarray ensued. Civil society organisations like AfriForum and Solidarity secured high-level meetings in Washington, while our official diplomatic presence remained directionless. Undermining national trade posture Even the Democratic Alliance was accused of undermining our national trade posture through uncoordinated political freelancing, a move that seemingly cost MP Emma Powell her role as the DA's International Relations spokesperson. At the core of Washington's growing frustration is South Africa's erratic and often contradictory foreign policy. Despite claiming to be non-aligned, our government has taken deliberate steps that signal the opposite. The ANC's hosting of senior Hamas representatives in Pretoria, Minister Naledi Pandor's infamous meeting with then Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi, and South Africa's ambiguous stance on Russia's war in Ukraine have all sent provocative messages that clash with global democratic norms. These actions carry real-world consequences, as this latest tariff decision makes painfully clear. Even under the more diplomatic Biden administration, South Africa failed to rebuild trust. We did not use the opportunity to engage, negotiate or reassure. And now, under a more transactional Trump presidency, patience has run out. What is clear is that South Africa urgently needs a foreign policy rooted in clear principles and strategic interests, instead of nostalgia and ideology. Our diplomacy must be led by the state, above party politics, and laser focused on three core objectives: expanding trade and economic growth, defending human rights, and advancing democracy on the continent and beyond. The current bipolar approach, with mixed signals from different actors, is unsustainable and deeply damaging. A government-led, coherent strategy to stabilise and grow our trade relationship with the US is now mission-critical. This strategy must include five immediate actions: South Africa must reassert official leadership in managing our engagement with Washington. Splinter groups and political parties must refrain from back-channelling for narrow political gain. Trade policy is national policy. South Africa must speak with one clear, credible, and united voice. Our government must directly engage with the US Congress, which holds immense sway over trade legislation. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill need to hear not just about Agoa's benefits for South Africa, but for the US too. More than 500,000 American jobs are tied to trade with us. We should use that as leverage. South Africa must table a credible trade and investment plan that showcases the mutual benefits of partnership. Priority sectors like automotive exports (valued at more than $1.2-billion annually), citrus, wine, metals and green technology must be at the forefront. We must position ourselves as a reliable partner for US capital, technology, and innovation as America eyes new partners in the global energy transition. A full economic risk assessment must be urgently commissioned to measure the impact of the proposed tariffs on jobs and industry. Such a study would not only quantify the damage, but guide our negotiating position and enable smarter policy responses, including sector-specific relief or adjustment mechanisms. Perhaps most urgently, we must appoint a capable and credible ambassador to Washington. This needs to be someone who understands both diplomacy and economics. The job now requires high-stakes negotiations to restore market confidence and protect jobs. That seat has remained vacant or ineffective for far too long. The truth is that South Africa's foreign policy has long lacked a future-focused economic dimension. It is too often discussed not in terms of trade, growth or a digital future, but in the context of how liberation movements can remain in power. This mindset has locked us into outdated alliances, including with authoritarian regimes that are neither democratic nor innovative. Meanwhile, we've neglected crucial relationships with long-standing partners like the US, and failed to appoint ambassadors, attend key forums or secure investment guarantees. What is clear is that we cannot afford to respond with more muddled messages, delayed decisions and ideological posturing. If we do not act with clarity, urgency and humility, we risk permanently losing one of our most important trade relationships. Now more than ever, our foreign policy must serve South Africa's economic interests. Jobs, industries and future growth hang in the balance. DM
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
Economic spin cycle: how anti-dumping duties could impact South African consumers
South Africa's washing machines are about to get more expensive, and Defy is hoping that's good news. The Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (DTIC) has endorsed the defence of the fully automatic top-loading washer hill. What began as a complaint lodged by Defy Appliances has now become a formal anti-dumping investigation and, soon, the likely imposition of provisional duties against imports from China and Thailand. It looks like a straightforward response to cheap foreign goods flooding the market, hammering local manufacturers and threatening jobs. But it is simultaneously a complex web of strategic policy, protectionism, precedent, and unintended consequences in the spin cycle. A heavy load The saga officially began in October 2024 when Defy asked the International Trade Administration Commission (Itac) to investigate imports of top-loading washers (10-17kg capacity) from China and Thailand. Defy alleges dumping margins of 21.48% for Chinese products and a whopping 67.11% for Thai machines, figures based on SA Revenue Service import data and overseas retail prices. It claims these imports have undercut local prices, slashed profits and forced an inventory build-up – a sign of unsold stock piling up in warehouses. In Defy's view, unless something is done, the injury will get worse as global overcapacity looks for cheap destinations such as South Africa. Itac seems to agree, at least enough to say a prima facie case exists. Provisional duties are expected by the end of 2025. Caught in a whirlpool Hisense South Africa was named alongside Chinese giant Midea in the Government Gazette, but the company says there's nothing sinister at play. 'Hisense SA categorically affirms that it has never been complicit in facilitating any form of alleged dumping, nor has it acted in contravention of South African trade laws or ethical business practices,' Luna Nortje, deputy general manager at Hisense SA, told Daily Maverick. 'We are fully committed to fair, transparent trade and continue to work closely with all relevant regulatory bodies to ensure full compliance.' 'These are standard processes designed to ensure market fairness and in no way imply unethical practice,' she said. Hisense's local credentials are significant. Since setting up shop in 1996, the company has invested more than R350-million into its Atlantis manufacturing plant, which today produces up to 500,000 refrigerators and a million televisions annually – not just for South Africa, but for export to more than 10 African countries. In fact, Nortje said Hisense was exploring further localisation: 'We are currently in the process of assessing the viability of manufacturing chest freezers at (the Atlantis) facility.' That said, she acknowledged the consumer pain. 'These tariffs will sadly affect consumers – as the product prices of those specific items would correspondingly increase.' A beast of Defy's own design Defy has danced this policy waltz before. Back in 2004, the company lobbied for a reduction in washing machine tariffs – it had halted local production and argued that duties hurt consumers. Then in 2019, it asked for a 30% hike on smaller top-loaders to protect planned investments in local manufacturing. Fast forward to 2025, and Defy is calling for protection again, but this time with localisation and industrial strategy riding shotgun. The DTIC's 'Reimagined Industrial Strategy' leans heavily on import substitution and job retention, and Defy's latest campaign aligns perfectly with those goals. In a way, the company is using trade policy not just as a shield, but as a tool to de-risk investment. Whether that's smart industrial pragmatism or self-serving protectionism depends on where you sit in the value chain. Copying moves from across the pond South Africa's washer war borrows heavily from America's. When Whirlpool triggered a trade war in the US against Samsung and LG a decade ago, it led to a game of global musical chairs. Once South Korean and Mexican washers were slapped with duties, production shifted to China. Then, when Chinese goods were targeted, factories moved to Thailand and Vietnam. This tactic (called 'country-hopping') made the US tariffs look more like speed bumps than roadblocks. Defy's decision to hit both China and Thailand out of the gate is a direct nod to that history; to plug the loopholes before they appear. But the American experience also shows how these moves can backfire. Prices on US washing machines rose by nearly 12% after those 2018 tariffs. Even dryers, which weren't tariffed, saw price hikes because retailers usually sell them in pairs. In the end, American consumers forked out $1.5 billion more, for 1,800 saved jobs. That worked out to more than $800,000 per job. Who wins, who spins? South Africa's washing machine trade wars come at a bad time for the economy. Winners: Defy gets a reprieve, likely recovering margin and market share. Policymakers score localisation points and can point to job protection. Local component suppliers might benefit if production ramps up. Losers: Consumers face higher prices – potentially 22% or more on affected washers. Low-income households bear the brunt; appliance affordability is a key cost-of-living metric. Retailers and importers scramble to find new sources, maybe from Vietnam, Turkey or Eastern Europe. Chinese and Thai exporters are likely to lose Southern African Customs Union market share, at least temporarily. Even complementary goods such as dryers could see price bumps, mimicking the US model. And as Defy gains pricing power, don't expect them to keep prices flat. Airing dirty laundry Anti-dumping duties sound noble, shielding local jobs from unfair trade, but they also set a precedent. What's stopping other industries from filing similar complaints? And if each results in price hikes, the inflationary impact stacks up. This matters for the South African Reserve Bank, which is already trying to keep inflation within the 3-6% target band. Appliances might be a small piece of the pie, but multiple actions like this create a cumulative effect. There's also the question of what happens in five years when the duties expire. Itac will have to decide whether the 'injury' risk still exists, and that decision will be just as political as it is economic… and Defy needs to show it was worth the effort with local investment. DM
Eyewitness News
6 hours ago
- Eyewitness News
Lamola assures SA exporters govt won't ignore their concerns over US tariffs
JOHANNESBURG - International Relations Minister Ronald Lamola has moved to assure South African exporters that the government won't ignore their concerns over the impact of the hefty United States tariffs on their operations and bottom lines. Lamola revealed part of a package of interventions for South African exporters expected to be hardest hit by the tariffs. This includes farmers and manufacturers. While trade negotiations are continuing, government said an economic response package will help cushion the blow. ALSO READ: Govt intervening to cushion blow of harsh US tariffs on local businesses - Ramaphosa Lamola said this includes measures to assist companies to absorb the tariff and facilitate long-term growth strategies to protect jobs and productive capacity in South Africa. "We are also working with the Department of Labour on measures to mitigate potential job losses, using existing instruments such as the UIF that can be adjusted to respond to the current challenges." Lamola was joined by Trade and Industry Minister Parks Tau, who said the localisation fund support stands ready to provide targeted competitiveness and efficiency support. "The fact that the localisation support fund is on board, the department of labour is on board, in terms of modelling the support packages, seeks to mitigate the impact of these decisions."
