Howard Richards

The CWP and Enterprise Creation

I will give four reasons why the CWP should not get involved in enterprise creation and then one reason why after all it should.

In the end I will agree with Kate that the real question is not whether to create enterprises, but when and how and of what kind. I think the real question can best be answered after we think about four arguments against CWP doing any enterprise creation at all. Four negatives, and then one positive that takes into account the reasons behind the four negatives.

They are four reasons stated from four different points of view. I will call them the neo-liberal, trade union, progressive economist, and futurist points of view.

My final positive conclusion will be from a community development point of view.

By “neoliberal point of view” I mean here especially a belief and a fear. First the belief that markets are capable of providing something reasonably close to full employment at good wages. Second the fear, that government programmes will interfere with employment creation in the private sector, creating public jobs that crowd out private jobs.

Even people who do not think of themselves as neoliberal often tend to assume the neoliberal faith that normal markets normally functioning normally solve the problems of poverty. For example they say South Africa is not fully developed yet, and that after full development happens supposedly there will be no more unemployment, or only some desirable level of frictional unemployment.

Similarly high rates of unemployment in South Africa may be blamed on apartheid. South Africa is seen as an outlier, with abnormally high unemployment and youth unemployment because of its abnormal history.

Thirdly, even people who do not think of themselves as neoliberals may agree with the Washington Consensus emphasis on education as a cure for unemployment. Major causes of unemployment are said to be lack of education, lack of qualifications, or the wrong kind of education -- education that prepared people for non-existent jobs instead of for existing job openings in fields like welding where there are unfilled vacancies.

Underdevelopment, apartheid, and an ineffective educational system are seen as distortions of normality. Development, a rainbow nation with liberty for all and

1

prejudice toward none, and better education are expected to bring South Africa to the normality that free markets normally provide.

Thus any neoliberal objection to anything CWP does must be seen against the background of a general faith in market solutions that makes non-market solutions unnecessary, and a general fear that the government will distort the market in ways that lead South Africa away from prosperity for all instead of toward prosperity for all.

From a neoliberal point of view there are two key questions to ask about CWP. First, is CWP adequately preparing people for the private sector employment that supposedly awaits them as they acquire qualifications, as South Africa develops, and as South Africa puts apartheid forever behind it? Second, is CWP making matters worse instead of better by interfering with private sector job creation that would occur is government would back off and let the free market work its magic? These are the questions asked in a recent OECD report on the province of Gauteng. CWP and EPWP were briefly mentioned and criticized for the failure of the government to carry out proper evaluations of them asking these two questions.1

What are the theoretical underpinnings that are used to argue that this neoliberal faith and this neoliberal fear are not merely a faith and a fear, but are based on true science, supposedly as valid in the social sphere as physics and astronomy in the natural sphere?

One theoretical underpinning is Say’s Law, according to which every seller including a seller of labour always finds a buyer, i.e. an employer, when three conditions are met: Markets are left alone by governments. Sellers intelligently offer what buyers want instead of stupidly offering what buyers do not want. Markets are competitive.

A second theoretical underpinning is equilibrium theory according to which markets when left alone will be driven by free competition to a point where prices equal costs of production. At that point there will be full employment at market wages, market wages being themselves the cost of production of labourers, i.e. what a worker needs to stay alive. On a more recent version, that of Simon Kuznets, in the early stages of capitalism market wages are subsistence wages, but as it matures capitalism itself reverses its own inequalities. A trend toward equality sets in and market wages rise accordingly. Thomas Piketty has recently published a very well documented refutation of Kuznets, showing that indeed the normal tendency of capitalism is toward inequality and very low wages. Whenever market wages are decent wages it is because the normal operation of the market has been improved by trade unions, government, and other deviations from neoliberal ideals.

1 OECD Territorial Reviews: Gauteng city-region, South Africa. Available at www.oecd.org. The references to CWP and other public employment programmes are brief and scattered.

2

Although this is not the time or the place to analyse Say’s Law and equilibrium theory in detail, I think it is important for everyone to think about whether they believe them. If you believe markets left alone will under normal circumstances will solve the unemployment problem, that is a mind-set that will infect everything you think and do. Many people implicitly believe Say’s Law and equilibrium theory as part of a dominant ideology they assimilate unconsciously and uncritically.

In the case of CWP, I do not think anyone who participated in starting it ever believed that free markets normally bring full employment at good wages. However, they did believe that it was necessary to compromise with the neoliberals in order to get CWP approved. They had to back off from any kind of enterprise creation that neoliberals see as government doing inefficiently what the market does efficiently, thus doing more harm than good. They gave assurances that CWP would do no crowding out. It would not crowd out any private sector jobs by satisfying market demand through enterprises created by spending public money. CWP would devote itself strictly to community service. It would create use value, not exchange value. For example CWP workers would cook and clean house for penniless AIDS victims who are in no position to pay.

At a more gut level, at a less theoretical level, the proponents of CWP did not want any private business people complaining that they were being forced to compete with businesses funded by CWP. They did not want anybody complaining that they suffered from unfair competition from competitors subsidized by the government.

So a first reason for not using CWP for enterprise creation is to honour a promise. CWP should back off from doing anything that could or might slow down or undermine the creation of jobs by private entrepreneurs.

A promise to back off from competing with the private sector does not completely satisfy all neoliberals. Died in the wool “Austrians” and “Chicagoans” assert theoretical grounds for holding that instead of spending money on CWP and EPWP the government should lower taxes, leaving the money in the pockets of private citizens instead of transferring it to the poor. This viewpoint can be expected to reappear in evaluations of CWP that use techniques like “Harberger triangles” and “deadweight analysis” to measure the benefits of CWP against measures of the benefits that theoretically would have accrued leaving the same money in private pockets. The OECD Gauteng report calls for this kind of evaluation.

[Pause]

By a trade union point of view I mean one that looks out for the interests of workers. Here CWP made another promise: its participants were not to compete with public sector workers by doing their jobs. CWP in practice has been obliged to back off from

3

some partnerships with hospitals and schools because it was perceived as undermining the bargaining power of health care workers and teachers.

Enterprise creation funded by CWP that undermines the bargaining power of workers is perhaps a scenario unlikely to occur, but perhaps it is possible. That is why I mention it.

[Here somebody might speak up to mention other kinds of trade union doubts about CWP]

Progressive economists awaken us to a third point of view framing an objection to enterprise creation by CWP. Progressive economists have a short answer to the long question, “When will market-based remedies for poverty provide full employment or approximately full employment at decent wages and decent earnings for small and micro–entrepreneurs?” The short answer is one word: “Never!” Progressive economists open our minds to a wider perspective in which devoting CWP to creating enterprises that are later supposed to stand on their own and be viable in the marketplace is a distraction. The objection is to distracting CWP from its core mission. There are many agencies, public and private, designed to help the poor create enterprises. Why dilute the efforts of the one programme that is pioneering a major breakthrough in employment creation by dumbing it down to the level of the same old same old that other institutions are already doing? They have been doing it for decades now with very limited success.

By “progressive economists” I have in mind today mainly John Maynard Keynes, Amartya Sen, his co-author Martha Nussbaum who is like me a philosopher of social science, and Sen’s co-author Jean Dreze who is the intellectual godfather of the Mahatma Gandhi rural employment guarantee in India Another day I would be happy to discuss with anyone interested the contributions of Marxist and post-Marxist scholars.

Progressive economists demonstrate with facts and logic that it is impossible to solve the problem of poverty by enterprise creation. To be sure, there is some benefit derived from micro-credit schemes and others that ease the entry of the poor into the market-place. But in CWP we are amazing the nations by following a different principle. In CWP we have the separation of the right to earn a livelihood from the necessity to sell something. CWP is a prototype for social innovation that really could solve the problem of poverty. Why muddle it by devoting CWP resources to the small benefits of enterprise creation? Why make CWP just one more ho hum programme among the countless all around the world that follow a conventional implicitly neoliberal common sense that in the end leads not exactly nowhere but not very far either?

4

OK. Let us glance at some of the main lessons we have learned from John Maynard Keynes and from Amartya Sen. Why is it impossible to end poverty by enterprise creation? Why is it possible to end poverty by separating the right to a livelihood from the necessity to sell something? Why are Say’s Law and equilibrium theory wrong, on points where progressive economists are right?

A basic lesson from Keynes is the chronic insufficiency of effective demand. That changes everything. The logic is simple. People do not spend all their money. Neither do businesses. Money not spent means purchases not made. Will every seller find a buyer? No. Will everyone who needs a job find an employer? No.

The chronic insufficiency of effective demand changes everything. Keynes writes: “History teaches that full, or even approximately full, employment rarely occurs, and when it does occur it does not last long.” If you think that the criminals can be rehabilitated, that they can all learn a trade, and then they will all find jobs after they reform and decide to go straight, forget it. If you think all the poor can stop being poor by going entrepreneurial and starting their own little businesses, forget it.

Forget it, that is, unless you believe in Say’s Law. Neoliberals do. They have filled many academic journals and written many books to try to prove that if we could just get prices right, break up all the monopolies and oligopolies, and get the government and the unions out of the way, every seller would find a buyer. The Keynesian Paul Krugman, Nobel laureate in economics for 2008, argues that the series of financial crises over the last several decades, culminating in the Wall Street crash of 2008, and continuing today with meltdowns in Greece and elsewhere, prove with facts that Keynes was right. There really is a chronic insufficiency of effective demand. Under normal conditions, with normal markets normally functioning, the poor stay poor.

Amartya Sen draws a logical conclusion from the facts about the normal functioning of capitalism. I quote Sen: “Capitalism leads to mean streets and stunted lives unless it is regulated and supplemented by other institutions, many of them non-mercantile.” Non-mercantile is another word for non-market. I underline Sen’s word supplement. That is where CWP comes in. It is a supplement to capitalism. It is part of a complex solution to a complex problem. One of its distinctive contributions is that people are paid for useful work where usefulness is judged by the local community, not by the market. People work but they do not sell their product for money, nor do they work for an employer who in turn sells their product for money.

Now we are on a path where the destination really is an end to poverty. We have broken the sales barrier. We have overcome the constraint that there can be job creation if and only if there are customers able and willing to buy the products. Now – when we address the question how supplements to capitalism can be delivered

5

on a scale sufficient to end poverty—we must think seriously about the relationship of the haves to the have-nots. How can resources flow from resource-rich and highly productive sectors to the resource-poor, reliably and in sufficient quantities, and do so without sabotaging South Africa’s already high productivity and without derailing the innovations constantly raising productivity?

Here CWP enters again. CWP is a breakthrough programme not only because it breaks the sales barrier but also because it catalyses the mobilization of the resources of the poor themselves. An official mandate of CWP approved by Cabinet is to use public employment to catalyse community development. This means that it does not just spend public money. It mobilizes complementary resources, including volunteer time and in-kind contributions. Surely part of the answer to the question, “How much can the rich share with the poor without killing the goose that laid the golden egg?” is to minimize the burden on the taxpayer through community development that maximizes mobilizing resources to meet needs with resources the poor already have.

[Pause]

Let me give my favourite example. Aaron here can tell you more about it. In the Free State CWP has catalysed a mini-social movement that promotes singing in choirs. People visit each other’s churches as choirs that sing for each other’s congregations. I read this as a plus for religion and I firmly believe that religion can be a big plus in the fight against poverty. When people’s souls are saved they spend less money on vices and they forgive each other’s sins. Family life becomes more functional and less dysfunctional. The man is more likely to bring the pay check home to the woman. He is less likely to spend it on prostitutes and alcohol, and then come home drunk and beat the woman. So I see a wave of popular enthusiasm for singing the praises of the Lord as winning a battle in the war against poverty. And all this at no expense to the taxpayer. The time spent practicing hymns is all volunteer time. Somehow the singers raise enough money among themselves to travel from church to church. CWP did the catalysing --it gave people a little security, it brought them together, it facilitated some brainstorming about what they could do together to improve their lives. The community did the developing in its own way and at its own expense. Furthermore, one cannot accuse the government of interfering in matters of religion, of forcing people to be religious who do not want to be, or of favouring one creed over another. At this point the people themselves are organising themselves to do what they want to do.

A basic lesson from John Maynard Keynes and Amartya Sen is that when we rely on the simple idea that any poor person can go entrepreneurial and sell her or his way out of poverty, sooner or later we run into a brick wall. The brick wall is a shortage of customers to buy the products. We need complex solutions to complex

6

problems. Part of the complex solutions must be job creation that does not depend on sales. Part of it must be community development that improves quality of life and lifts people out of poverty catalysing resources the poor already have. CWP is a big plus on both counts.

Now let us look at a little history to see how it was that Keynes fell out of favour with policy makers, how neoliberalism fell into favour with policy makers, and how that led to where we are today.

Think 1946. Keynes dies but he is survived by many Keynesians. They reason as follows: If the problem is a shortfall in effective demand, then the solution is more effective demand. Therefore, lower interest rates to make it easy to buy on credit and easy to get money to invest. Pump up government spending. Use TV to socialize the younger generations to buy and buy and ever more buy. Meanwhile, a growing chorus of anti-Keynesians is arguing that it is not working. It is leading to inflation but it is not leading to full employment.

Think 1980. Reagan is elected in the USA, Thatcher in the UK, Kohl in Germany, bringing with them platoons of anti-Keynesian neoliberal advisers. The IMF and the World Bank change their tunes. We all know what happens next.

Think 2014. Keynes is dead but Amartya Sen is still alive. The so-called Keynesian remedies for the insufficiency of effective demand did not work, but the neoliberal remedies did not work either. Sen and his co-author Jean Dreze are pushing another approach: Instead of pumping up the market with stimulus after stimulus, frankly admit that the market is only one way to meet human needs, and not always the best way. Therefore, supplement the market with, for examples, the Mahatma Gandhi employment guarantee in India, the EPWP and the CWP in South Africa.

[Pause]

Now let’s hear from the futurists. Keynes taught us that as a matter of history full employment, or even approximately full employment, rarely happens, and when it does happen it does not last. Between his time and ours history has confirmed his diagnosis. Enter the futurists. Their message is: you ain’t seen nothing yet. In the future whole idea of employment, of work, of jobs, of livelihood will have to be drastically reconsidered. Seen in this light, South Africa can be proud of CWP as one of the few programmes in the world that has already begun -- not just in theory but also in practice-- to do the drastic rethinking that the future will require. In this light changing CWP into one more enterprise creation programme is a dumb idea. It is tying hopes for ending poverty to a past that is quickly fading.

7

The robots are coming. Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, the US Central Bank, in a new book celebrates the fact that industry is now returning to the United States. For half a century now the third world has enjoyed a competitive advantage in the new industrial division of labour because of its abundant work force, in many cases offering higher quality labour at much lower cost. First world manufacturing jobs have evaporated as industries fled high wages, unions, and labour laws. Now, chortles Greenspan, the tide has turned. The robots of the USA turn out goods at lower unit cost than the workers of East Asia. Low wages are at a competitive disadvantage compared to no wages.

This is cold comfort for first world workers. Jobs are returning to the first world but most of them are not going to human beings. Work as we have known it is disappearing. Jeremy Rifkin has written a series of books on the end of work and the need to rethink the whole relationship between producing the material basis that life requires and the living of life. In his latest book published just last month he reports that the electricity industry in Germany is already cancelling expansion plans because so many people are tapping into new technologies that give them access to free energy coming directly from the sun and wind. In Alberta, Canada, an inventor has already used a 3D printer to make a simple automobile. 3D printers combine informatics and robotics to programme the manufacture of consumer products starting with basic raw materials. Making vehicles with 3D printers portends the loss of millions of jobs in manufacturing. The Chinese are already making simple houses with 3D printers. The future means the loss of millions of jobs in construction. There is an exponential growth of what is called freecycling. In freecycling people use the Internet to offer what they do not need and are willing to give away, and to search for what they do need that others are willing to give away. That means layoff in retailing. Teaching jobs will be lost to free courses offered on line. The hotel industry is threatened by the couchsurfing movement through which travellers find free lodging. Quite recently, too late for inclusion in Rifkin’s new book, researchers at MIT announced the invention of an artificial leaf. It does photosynthesis with ten times the efficiency of a natural leaf. The future may well mean the loss of millions of jobs in agriculture.

The general trend is that the inevitable advance of science and technology is downsizing capitalism, drying up many ways to profit by selling things. The things it is still profitable to sell are made with fewer and fewer human workers. To anybody who thinks that at this point in time we are going to end poverty by upsizing capitalism, the general trend says “Forget it.”

We should be happy. Science is rescuing us from toil, and helping us in turn to rescue the biosphere. But we are not happy because we are still stuck in the old paradigm where the gifts of science and of nature are only available to people with

8

money, and where the legitimate ways to get money are circumscribed by the game of making-in-order-to-sell-and-selling-in- order-to-profit.

[Pause]

This objection to distracting CWP from social innovation by tying it to old paradigms can be illustrated by an example from CWP in Alex, Johannesburg. In an old church in Alex you will find a chorus line of young CWP participants dancing and singing. What they are doing has many of the characteristics of work. Not just anybody can do it. You have to audition and if you are not good enough you cannot join the troupe. It requires self-discipline. If you do not learn your lines and practice your steps you are kicked out. You develop your talents. Your God-given native abilities are augmented by culturally-given instruction. You contribute to the happiness of others, putting on performances mainly in schools. You get paid for it –in this case you get paid due to a transfer of resources from the taxpayers to the poor through the channel of CWP.

The ward authorities in Alex regard dancing and singing as “useful work” in the category of “youth leadership.” They believe that when other young people see the CWP dance troupe on stage they see healthy young people enjoying life and not on drugs. That keeps young people away from drugs and therefore away from crime.

Seen in a larger perspective we can see in Alex a foretaste of a human future that will return to what the anthropologist Marshall Sahlins calls “stone age economics.” Sahlins claims that in the Stone Age people could meet their needs with only a few hours of gathering and hunting a day. They had more leisure than we have today to devote themselves to spiritual and cultural self-improvement. If we play our cards right, we may be able to bequeath to our descendants a future where the robots do the work while the humans dance and sing.

[Pause]

Having said all of the above, I must now add a fifth perspective, that of community development. I must add too that Jean-Baptiste Say was not entirely wrong. Many sellers do find buyers. Many people who need work do find employers who hire them. It is really true, as Say said, that in a thriving market town the producers of different goods become markets for each other’s products. We really can develop local economies by building local productive capacity and then encouraging the producers to buy each other’s products.

One can imagine CWP sticking to its core mission, and then dovetailing with other agencies that do the specifics of helping poor people create enterprises. However, one cannot imagine community development without enterprise creation. This is true for three reasons. First, community development empowers local people

9

to make their own decisions and then act on them. Second, a mapping process like ABCD (Asset Based Community Development) will identify opportunities for enterprise creation. Third, people will want to create enterprises. Community development is about the zone of proximal development of any given community. It meets people where they are. It accompanies them in a realistic next step. It is about what Paulo Freire called “untested feasibility.”

Therefore we must ask whether it is possible to do community development, including its enterprise creation component, in a way that fully takes into account the objections against using CWP to create enterprises stated above.

Can we do it actually creating new jobs and not just using public money to grab a piece of a limited market, stealing someone else’s job in order to give a CWP participant a job?

Can we get past the brick wall of too few customers?

Can we prepare for the future taking steps communities are willing to take now?

I will discuss these three questions using the urban agriculture programme of the city of Rosario, Argentina, as an example.

Every poor neighbourhood in Rosario has a Learning Centre, a Centro Crecer. It serves three purposes. It is a kindergarten. It is a study hall for school age children, most of whom do not have a quiet place at home to do their homework. It is a community centre.

Every Centro Crecer has an agricultural adviser. She or he is simultaneously something of a community organizer. The ag adviser promotes organic food production in the small spaces where people live, and even inside the houses as in the case of raising rabbits on recycled kitchen scraps. The ag adviser also organises community gardens run by neighbours or by extended families. Access to land to cultivate is voluntarily allowed by landowners as a contribution to the community.

The ag advisers also promote the sale of produce in farmers markets run by the city government. The use of stalls in the markets is free for urban farmers. They get free courses on how to comply with health and safety standards, on how to keep books, and on how to qualify for the necessary licenses to do business. They also get free training on how to process raw produce, for example on how to turn herbs and honey into natural medicinal products.

Most urban farming families branch out and also do for example baking and sewing. The Chamber of Commerce of the Rosario textile industry provides courses for urban farming ladies who want to add handmade clothing to their stock in trade.

10

The city government sponsors a media campaign spreading the word among consumers about the health benefits of the organic products for sale in the farmers markets. Something similar happens in Chile where the national government promotes organic farming among smallholders.

Urban agriculture in Rosario leads to a kind of enterprise creation, to a kind of job creation. The urban farmers are in business for themselves. They enjoy the dignity of success as success is defined by the culture they live in.

Urban agriculture in Rosario is neither a market solution nor a non-market solution. In the words of Gunnar Myrdal it might be called a “created harmony.”

[Pause]

Now, the three questions:

Does Rosario’s urban agriculture actually create new jobs and not just use public money to grab a piece of a limited market, stealing somebody’s job in order to give someone else a small family business?

Does it get past the brick wall of too few customers?

Does it prepare for the future taking steps communities are willing to take now?

Regarding the first question, Rosario has no promises to keep. Unlike India and South Africa, it did not give assurances that no jobs would be lost in the private sector. Freed from a need to respect the political realities of India and South Africa, the Rosarinos and we as theorists can ask what the criteria should be for evaluating innovations in job creation.

Neoliberal criteria are very different from Amartya Sen criteria. For neoliberals whatever the problem may be the default drive is the market and within the market the default drive is standard for-profit business. They turn to governments, or to civil society, or to coops, or to indigenous knowledge systems, or to non-profits, or to employee-owned enterprises, or to hybrid creative harmonies, or to anything other than the straight market if and only if the market fails. The burden of proof is on the innovator, and if the innovator cannot prove her or his case, the default drive takes over.

Let us imagine for example the greening of South Africa, extending a mandate to catalyse community development to a mandate to catalyse green community development. Local small scale labour-intensive food production reverses practices that cause global warming. It brings back to life soils deadened by heavy doses of chemicals that killed its worms and its micro-organisms. Imported species of trees

11

that destroy the water supply are replaced by native trees that enhance the water supply. Ubuntu is brought back as some of Melanie Prinsloo’s research shows that some participants already perceive CWP as doing. Etc.

On neoliberal criteria it is hard to make a case for tilting public policy in favour of local markets and green labour-intensive farming. It can easily be shown that there is no market failure because Big Agriculture and Big Retail are already quite capable of supplying all the food there is a market for.

The criteria are quite different for progressive thinkers like Amartya Sen. Their question is, “What is the best way to do it?” The evidence relevant to answering their question spans a broad range of social and ecological data, both quantitative and qualitative.

On Sen’s criteria, on the other hand, the evaluations of the Rosario experience and the South Africa proposal are no-brainers. Factoring a wider range of social and economic variables into the equations makes an airtight case for social integration plus ecological sustainability.

[Pause]

Now let us think about the brick wall.

A classic way to get past the brick wall advocated by John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s was public employment. Why public employment? Because governments pay for it. The brick wall is a shortfall in sales. The way past the brick wall is to fund livelihoods that do not depend on sales. The way to fund livelihoods that do not depend on sales is to orchestrate transfers from the haves to the have-nots.

Rosario urban agriculture follows a more complex path to the same destination. In the last analysis there has to be some sort of transfer from the haves to the have-nots to end poverty, but we do not get to the last analysis right away. The labour power, the talents, and the resources of poor communities are milked for all they are worth. After that, urban agriculture is partly subsistence agriculture. People eat what they grow and share it with family, friends, and neighbours.

[Someone may want to put in a word in favour of subsistence agriculture in SA]

When it comes to sales, Rosario urban agriculture sales are in abnormal markets. The market is tilted in their favour by many discreet transfers from haves to have-nots. Some are voluntary like the use of land for planting provided free by the owners of the land. Some of the transfers are involuntary, like the tax payments that fund the salaries of the ag advisers.

12

The answer of progressive economists to the question, “When will the free market alone lift the poor out of poverty?” remains the same. “Never!”

Let us now look at steps communities are willing and able to take now that prepare for what appears to be the probable future. Urban agriculture in Rosario suggests two lessons.

First, it is not hard to persuade people to engage in healthy and constructive activities that they enjoy even if the pay is modest. One thing many people enjoy is gardening. Many people also enjoy being the owner of their own business, not dependent on a boss or on government handouts.

Second, it need not be difficult to persuade the haves to share with the have-nots. In the case of Rosario even the payment of taxes was in an important way voluntary.

In Rosario the taxpayers are the middle classes and upper middle classes who live near downtown in the central districts. The people who live on the periphery are too poor to pay taxes. Ever since 1982 when democracy was restored in Argentina after a brutal dictatorship the voters in the central districts have been voting to lay taxes on themselves to pay for programmes like Learning Centres and Urban Agriculture that do not directly benefit themselves. They benefit the have-nots who live in the townships on the periphery.

I will not try to summarize. What I have said is too complex. The bottom line is that complex problems require complex solutions.

13

14