Of all the articles and opinion pieces that have appeared since President Cyril Ramaphosa’s speech of October 15, titled ‘Economic Reconstruction and Recovery Plan’, not one touched on another of the President’s speeches, delivered 755 days earlier, on September 21, 2018, and titled ‘Economic Stimulus and Recovery Plan’. The latter had ‘stimulus’ in place of ‘reconstruction’.

That the 2018 speech received no commentary or even reference in the context of the latest speech is an indictment on South Africa’s economic commentators and economic journalists. It is their duty to not merely comment on the recent ‘plan’ but also pay attention to, and report on, the ‘plan’ that it replaces.

The Cambridge Dictionary defines ‘stimulus’ as something that causes growth or activity, and ‘reconstruction’ as the process of building or creating something again that has been damaged or destroyed.

If you are cynical, you could say that the first ‘plan’ stimulated the South African economy into a recession, as the economy has recorded four consecutive quarters of negative growth, or ‘Recession Square’, as I referenced it in the column of September 18. In the column of October 16, I reminded readers that an economic recovery is the phase of an economic cycle which follows a recession. I explained the three types of economic recovery: a V-shaped recovery, which is a quick bounce, a U-shaped recovery, where the recovery is slow; and an L-shaped recovery, where there is no return to normal.

The Economic Stimulus and Recovery Plan consists of “. . . a range of measures, both financial and nonfinancial, that will be implemented immediately to, firstly, ignite economic activity, secondly, restore investor confidence, thirdly, prevent further job losses and create new jobs, and fourthly, address some urgent challenges that affect the conditions faced by vulnerable groups among our people. The measures we are announcing give priority to those areas of economic activity that will have the greatest impact on youth, women and small businesses.”

These consist of four broad parts: “Firstly, implementation of growth-enhancing economic reforms. Secondly, reprioritisation of public spending to support job creation. Thirdly, the establishment of an infrastructure fund. Fourthly, addressing urgent and pressing matters in education and health. Fifthly, investing in municipal social infrastructure improvement.”

The penultimate paragraph states: “We are confident that the four elements of our economic stimulus and recovery package will play a decisive role in reversing the recent contraction of the South African economy.”

Of interest is the similarity of language. The Economic Stimulus and Recovery Plan states that “it must be a national effort in which all of us work together to restore our economy to growth in the immediate term and prepare the ground for sustainable, inclusive growth into our future”, while the Economic Reconstruction and Recovery Plan states: “This is a plan through which all of us as South Africans should work together to build a new economy.” According to www.myenglishteacher.eu, “‘must’ is used when expressing obligation or an unavoidable requirement, whereas ‘should’ is more of a recommendation, or simply a desirable goal.”

This begs the question whether the recent ‘plan’ is a mere goal, reminiscent of a cheerleader chant, devoid of any action, and without accounting for the economic reality.

A cynic’s affirmative response would quote the recent ‘plan’: “The objectives of the plan are clear: (i) To create jobs, primarily through aggressive infrastructure investment and mass employment programmes; (ii) to reindustrialise our economy, focusing on growing small businesses; (iii) to accelerate economic reforms to unlock investment and growth; (iv) to fight crime and corruption; and, (v) to improve the capability of the State.”