IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/agreko/267367.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Viewpoint And Opinion: Scope For And Limitations To Deregulation And Privatisation Of South African Agricultural Services

Author

Listed:
  • Groenewald, J. A.

Abstract

The half century following 1930 witnessed world-wide increases in state involvement and interference in economic life. Public regulation and public enterprise brought in their wake gross inefficiency and inequity. Public enterprise could not maintain production efficiency. This, together with increasing regulation, created an ever-increasing burden of social services, monopolies, increased taxation, deficit budgeting and inflation. Governments and the public became increasingly unable to carry these burdens. This led to policies of deregulation and privatisation with improved effectiveness, efficiency and public finance as motives. Competition is vital to efficiency. Privatisation takes on different forms, depending on what is privatised and to what extent: provision or production. Persistence or formation of monopolies, changed objectives, staff and management problems and accountability present distinct pitfalls with deregulation and privatisation. These pitfalls must be overcome and avoided. Diversity and dualism in South African food needs and agricultural production imply too much needed diversity in products and market structures for a regulated environment. Deregulation and privatisation are needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Groenewald, J. A., 1991. "Viewpoint And Opinion: Scope For And Limitations To Deregulation And Privatisation Of South African Agricultural Services," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 30(2), June.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:agreko:267367
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.267367
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/267367/files/agrekon-30-02-009.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/267367/files/agrekon-30-02-009.pdf?subformat=pdfa
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.267367?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard McKenzie & Hugh Macaulay, 1980. "A bureaucratic theory of regulation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 297-313, January.
    2. George J. Stigler, 1971. "The Theory of Economic Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 2(1), pages 3-21, Spring.
    3. M. L. Truu, 1988. "Economics of Privatization1," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 56(4), pages 156-166, December.
    4. Estrin, Saul & Perotin, Virginie, 1987. "The regulation of british and french nationalised industries ," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(1-2), pages 361-367.
    5. Kassier, W E & Groenewald, J A, 1990. "The Agricultural Economy of South Africa," 1990 Symposium, Agricultural Restructuring in Southern Africa, July 24-27, 1990, Swakopmund, Namibia 183486, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    6. Kay, J A & Thompson, D J, 1986. "Privatisation: A Policy in Search of a Rationale," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 96(381), pages 18-32, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Groenewald, Jan A., 1991. "Agricultural Trade And Marketing Policy: Future Directions," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 30(4), December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Groenewald, J. A., 1991. "Review And Comment: Agricultural Summit Meeting, 24th August, 1990 In Pretoria," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 30(01), March.
    2. Athias, Laure & Wicht, Pascal, 2014. "Cultural Biases in Public Service Delivery: Evidence from a Regression Discontinuity Approach," MPRA Paper 60639, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Dustin Chambers & Courtney A. Collins & Alan Krause, 2019. "How do federal regulations affect consumer prices? An analysis of the regressive effects of regulation," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 180(1), pages 57-90, July.
    4. Zhang, Wenjia & Mauck, Nathan, 2018. "Government-affiliation, bilateral political relations and cross-border mergers: Evidence from China," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 220-250.
    5. Kamath Shyam J., 1994. "Privatization: A Market Prospect Perspective," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 53-104, March.
    6. Richard Barke & William Riker, 1982. "A political theory of regulation with some observations on railway abandonments," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 39(1), pages 73-106, January.
    7. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    8. Rodrigo M. S. Moita & Claudio Paiva, 2013. "Political Price Cycles in Regulated Industries: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 94-121, February.
    9. Scott Gehlbach & Konstantin Sonin & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, 2010. "Businessman Candidates," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 718-736, July.
    10. Francesco Caselli & Nicola Gennaioli, 2008. "Economics and Politics of Alternative Institutional Reforms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(3), pages 1197-1250.
    11. Simon Fink, 2013. "Policy Convergence with or without the European Union: The Interaction of Policy Success, EU Membership and Policy Convergence," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(4), pages 631-648, July.
    12. Hahn Robert, 2010. "Designing Smarter Regulation with Improved Benefit-Cost Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-19, July.
    13. Bommer, Rolf, 1995. "Environmental policy and industrial competitiveness: The pollution haven hypothesis reconsidered," Discussion Papers, Series II 262, University of Konstanz, Collaborative Research Centre (SFB) 178 "Internationalization of the Economy".
    14. Espínola-Arredondo, Ana & Muñoz-García, Félix, 2013. "When does environmental regulation facilitate entry-deterring practices," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 133-152.
    15. Thomas Wyrick & Roger Arnold, 1989. "Earmarking as a deterrent to rent-seeking," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 60(3), pages 283-291, March.
    16. Pavel Ciaian & Ján Pokrivčák & Dušan Drabik, 2008. "Prečo sú niektoré sektory v tranzitívnych ekonomikách menej reformované ako ostatné? prípad výskumu a vzdelávania v oblasti ekonómie [Why some sectors of transition economies are less reformed than," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2008(6), pages 819-836.
    17. Kris James Mitchener & Matthew Jaremski, 2014. "The Evolution of Bank Supervision: Evidence from U.S. States," NBER Working Papers 20603, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Masciandaro, D. & Nieto, M. & Prast, H.M., 2007. "Financial Governance of Banking Supervision," Other publications TiSEM 65d7ff26-dca3-4da3-86ff-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. Matthias Dahm & Nicolás Porteiro, 2008. "Informational lobbying under the shadow of political pressure," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 30(4), pages 531-559, May.
    20. J. Mark Ramseyer & Eric Rasmusen, 2013. "Lowering the Bar to Raise the Bar: Licensing Difficulty and Attorney Quality in Japan," Working Papers 2013-12, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:agreko:267367. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aeasaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.