The planned World Bank loan does not signal a departure from government policy, the trade minister tells Madeleine Wackernagel
TRADE and Industry Minister Alec Erwin this week dismissed suggestions that the proposed $70-million World Bank loan signalled a deviation from stated government policy.
“This is not a new borrowing initiative. We have set borrowing limits for this financial year and coming years, sourced from the domestic capital market, the international market and international financial institutions (IFI).
“This is merely the first slice of the IFI component.”
The World Bank doesn’t just hand out money; funds have to be targeted towards certain projects. So this particular programme seemed the perfect starting point, being a scheme designed to promote export competitiveness, worked out in close co- operation between the departments of finance and trade and industry.
“But,” he explains, “if we hadn’t taken this particular route, the project would still go ahead, albeit at higher cost, because we would have had to seek financing elsewhere, at less favourable rates.
“From a financial point of view, the two are de-linked – funds are fungible – but from a logistics point of view, because World Bank loans are project-linked, we’ve tied it to a particular package of our programme that was going on anyway.”
IFI loan terms are not automatically preferential, particularly when denominated in strong foreign currencies, and frequently come with a price – notably, conditionality. Some commentators see this first loan as the start of the slippery slope to interference in the South African economy by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
But Erwin insists this case is different.
“We do not allow new borrowing from the IFI. That would only distort our Budget and future budgetary flows. This deal is within our limits and our policies are consciously designed to prevent the possible pitfalls of a World Bank loan and the effects they’ve sometimes had on other economies.
“It’s ridiculous to say this money will affect our economy. And we’d be stupid to pass up the opportunity.”
Besides, according to World Bank officials, it’s early days yet. A Washington delegation has still to meet with government officials to iron out the details of a potential loan, which will then be presented to the World Bank board for authorisation. “It’s a long, drawn-out process,” says a World Bank representative.
As for criticism frequently levelled at the bank for its financial leverage, Erwin countered: “First, we’re confident that they’re such a small part of our economic activity, their influence is negligible; second, we’ve put in place policies designed to prevent the detrimental effects that some of their projects might actually have.”
Some analysts believe the bank is not all it’s cracked up to be: “Scratch beneath the surface of some of the advice they offer, and take a closer look at the projects they run, and the faults are obvious,” says one commentator.
But Erwin is used to such accusations. “People become very emotional about the bank; in some cases their criticisms are very understandable because the bank’s programmes have occasionally misfired. But we often use World Bank expertise and feel sufficiently experienced not to be threatened.”