The truth about trade policy
In her opinion piece on trade formulation and sector master plans (SMPs),
“Patel’s Opaque ‘Master Plans’ Suit SA’s Oligarchs — And Few Others” (FM Online, August 16), Telita Snyckers decries the SMPs (and the role of Ebrahim Patel, minister of trade, industry & competition, therein) in fiddling with trade policies. While I agree with some points she raises, I take issue with others — on matters of process and substance, as well as on the relationship between trade policy and industrial strategy.
The International Trade Administration Commission (ITAC) is responsible for the administration of trade policy and trade remedies. But the generation of trade policy remains the purview of government, exercised through several platforms, including bilateral and multilateral trade agreements.
All the harmful trade measures Snyckers accuses the government (and specifically Patel) of were initiated by the ITAC at the request of the government, or emanated from submissions by industries and other stakeholders. So it’s inaccurate to suggest that the ITAC has been bypassed in trade remedies. If anything, the SMP dialogue processes are multistakeholder engagements, even if they are championed by the government under the stewardship of Patel.
These forums — what Snyckers calls “working groups” — discuss anything of material impact on sectors’ value chain sustainability, and their survival and growth. These include the dumping of products, commodity prices and desired trade remedies. But they certainly also discuss a range of other policies and issues, which may include the promotion of local procurement.
So it’s inaccurate to assume SMPs are exclusive to the industry oligarchs and the minister, and are developing trade policy through opaque processes, and in a vacuum.
Big companies and industry lobby bodies “throw” their resources into research, and engage the government and the SMP dialogue processes to achieve outcomes in their interests. But I don’t agree that Patel and the government created a seat at the table for oligarchs, as these are multistakeholder forums that are robust in their dialogue processes.
Though there may be shortfalls in their “inclusivity”, these forums involve organised labour, industry bodies, government departments, and other state agencies such as the ITAC. They are not mere “box-ticking” platforms, and are not void of substance.
I agree with the sentiment that a social compact is powerful, and engaging with the industry is important. And, as Snyckers argues, we don’t need trade policies developed by oligarchs, or “administrative capture”.
We do need trade policies that are the outcomes of a wider participation by all stakeholders — as the SMPs seek to achieve.