

complex systems. economy. human dignity. ecology. well being. this time in Africa


I would say that China has been massively productive but not so much in producing commodities. That means the demand for commodities has gone up much more rapidly than the supply. You could imagine an alternative universe in which China grew by figuring out ways to produce oil, copper, and rice much more cheaply. Of course that's not what happened and it is relatively easy to see why not. Following some good policy changes, Chinese growth has been driven by a massive rural to urban migration and yes we are talking about hundreds of millions of people. It's plastic basketballs that have become cheaper, not the products of farms.
The mere addition of labor inputs to urban areas doesn't, in the short run, help you produce commodities more cheaply. Think of the Solow model where K and L have gone up lots but the rate of generating new ideas is only slightly higher.
When all those new Chinese engineers and scientists are at the peak of their creative powers, this relationship will reverse itself and commodities prices will plunge. But it's quicker to produce another toy than to bring about a new Green Revolution, so in the meantime commodity prices are very high. I give the current price trend another ten or fifteen years or so to run. Eventually high commodity prices will seem permanent and then the bottom will drop out.
We've never had a rapid and successful migration of hundreds of millions before, ever.
A society’s productive base is the source of its well-being. We should note that the productive base is a diverse collection of durable objects, some tangible and alienable (buildings and machinery, land and animals, trees and shrubs), some tangible but non-alienable (human beings, the oceans), some intangible but alienable (codified pieces of knowledge, such as patentable ideas), some intangible and non-alienable (air, skills, the legal framework, and cultural coordinates), and some that involve both human capital and mutual expectations (institutions, social capital).
But how is a generation to judge whether it is leaving behind an adequate productive base for its successor?
Coal-fired Total net maximum capacity * Kendal 3,840 MW * Majuba 3,843 MW * Matimba 3,690 MW * Lethabo 3,558 MW * Tutuka 3,510 MW * Matla 3,450 MW * Duvha 3,450 MW * Kriel 2,850 MW * Arnot 2,020 MW * Hendrina 1,895 MW * Camden 930 (Mothballed, being recommissioned) * Grootvlei -- (Mothballed, being recommissioned) * Komati -- (Mothballed, being recommissioned)
Nuclear * Koeberg 1,800 MW
Gas/liqued fuel turbine 925 MW Hydroelectric 600 MW
Pumped storage schemes 1,400 MW
The first main conclusion of this Report is that African countries have recorded strong economic performance for the third consecutive year, with an average growth rate of 5.8 per cent. This strong performance is due to a range of factors, including high commodity demand and prices and increased output in key sectors such as agriculture and services.
The second is that despite high growth rates in recent years, this strong performance has not translated into meaningful gains in terms of social development. African governments need to increase investments in social sectors, and also improve the efficiency of social sector expenditures. At the same time, gains from growth need to increase, by better targeting of employment creation through broader and more
flexible macroeconomic frameworks and sectoral policies.
Increasing wealth and increasing poverty at the same time creates a negative spiral of ever-increasing relative deprivation and social division. In some systems this increases the risks of violent outbursts by those who are left behind, in other systems this raises the risks of repression. It seems to me that no system can sustain a spiral of rising inequality in the long run without imploding or resorting to some form of repression.
poverty and inequality from their high levels under apartheid. The reality has been
disappointing: despite steady economic growth, income poverty probably rose in
the late 1990s before a muted decline in the early 2000s, income inequality has
probably grown, and life expectancy has declined. The proximate causes are clear:
persistent unemployment and low demand for unskilled labour, strong demand for
skilled labour, an unequal education system, and a social safety net that is
unusually widespread but nonetheless has large holes. It is also clear that
economic growth alone will not reduce poverty or inequality. Pro-poor social
policies are important, but not as important as a pro-poor economic growth path.
Unfortunately, there is little sign of the political conditions changing to push the
state towards the promotion of a more pro-poor pattern of economic growth.
There is some chance of parametric reforms of the welfare state. Overall, however,
it is likely that, after another ten years of democracy, unemployment and poverty
rates will remain high, despite significant redistribution through cash transfers,
and incomes will continue to be distributed extremely unequally.
See also earlier post Poverty Data continues to make headlines in South Africa
Since the early 2000s, natural resources such as freshwater and land have become increasingly scarce due to severe droughts and higher demand due to population growth and a consumer-orientated economy. Electricity supply have become more erratic as the expansion of coal-fired power generation elsewhere in the country and transmission to the City did not keep up with increasing demand. Wastewater treatment works are operating on full capacity and for three quarters of the time are not able to treat water up to local water quality guidelines. The generation of solid waste has mushroomed in recent years, placing severe pressure on existing landfills and transport systems to alternative sites.
The obvious breakdown in a sustainable symbiosis between the city, its natural resources and environment has important implications for municipal finances. While the City was largely self-sustaining in the early 2000s, relaying mostly on tariffs, charges and property rates, in later years, grants-in-aid and other sources of income are increasingly needed to pay for the City’s spiraling operational costs (incl. cost of service delivery). As capital expenditure is becoming very volatile as the city moves from one crisis to another, it is clear that natural resource shocks play an important part in this instability.
The City’s response has so far been partial and reactive. Severe water restrictions were implemented, electricity load shedding and rationing occurs (although not only strictly a city problem), and in both cases demand-side management programmes are implemented. Some pilot programmes have been launched to recycle solid waste. Planning for future services still occurs in the isolation of different city departments, using different assumptions on the implications of population and economic growth and pricing on the demand for electricity, water, waste and sanitation (EWWS) services. Despite some experiments with demand-side management, the mindset that supply-driven solutions (e.g. dams, power stations, landfills, treatment works) should be sought in the first place is still persistent.
This partial, uncoordinated approach to natural resource based service delivery will not be sufficient to steer the City back onto a sustainable development path. The delivery of EWWS services in the City are all reliant on the allocation of funds from municipal finance budgets, which in turn, is influenced by the scarcity of natural resources and the potential risks, liabilities and costs of services and service breakdowns on the environment.
At a high level, the city, its inhabitants, its environment and the municipal finances governing the management of the city are all part of one system. This research attempts to offer new insights by focusing on the dynamics of the city in a systems-wide perspective.
The approach taken in this work relies on the intellectual roots of systems thinking and has been developed and applied in many areas such as ecological economics, organizational learning, group dynamics and the science of complexity, amongst others. It builds on earlier work by Van den Belt (2004) and Costanza (1993) on systems dynamics modelling and ecological economics and is inspired by the work by Batty (2007) on cities as complex systems, amongst others.
The systems dynamics modeling approach that is used (utilizing PowerSim software) plays a key role in a broader understanding of systems (what is going on?) and the counterfactual behaviour (what would happen if?). The focus of such models is on scoping and to examine what key features drive systems behaviour. The inclusion of such dynamic relationships leaves space for time lags and feedback loops, concepts ignored in linear thinking processes. Patterns of non-linear growth and decay can therefore be modeled, providing an explanation for seemingly unexpected behaviour in a system.
A better understanding of the system was gained by following a two-pronged approach: (i) baseline studies by experts on aspects of the natural resource based services and (ii) workshops with experts and city decision makers on key problems, drivers and impacts of these problems, as well as possible responses to these problems. A database on the city’s natural resource use, pollution and waste as well as municipal finances was also developed. Prototype systems dynamics models were developed in close association with experts and decision makers and further focused on key questions that were identified in the process.
These high-level models provide decisionmakers with a tool to simulate the implications of a changing supply of and demand for natural resources (water and electricity) and impacts on the environment (wastewater, waste) on the operational costs and required capital investments for sustainable service delivery.
Eskom put forward the following reasons for the revision request:
Increased primary energy costs, and
Accelerated Demand Side Management (DSM costs)
On 20 December 2007, the Energy Regulator granted Eskom an average price increase of 14,2% to be applicable as of 1 April 2008.
In the light of the current electricity supply shortage and load shedding in the country, the Energy Regulator will give urgent attention to Eskom’s application and make its decision after following due process.