A Libertarian Account of Institutional Fragility, Political Patronage, Capital Consumption, and the Retreat from the State
South Africa presents one of the clearest contemporary cases for thinking about the fragility of modern economic institutions. The peaceful transition from apartheid to liberal democracy in 1994 was an extraordinary political achievement. It appeared possible that South Africa could combine democratic inclusion with the sophisticated industrial, financial and administrative capacities already present in the country. The first post-apartheid governments did not abolish the market economy. They preserved private ownership, reintegrated South Africa into international markets after sanctions had been lifted and, particularly from the mid-1990s, adopted relatively orthodox economic policies. The post-1994 record therefore cannot be reduced to the proposition that political transition immediately produced economic decline.
South Africa performed comparatively well during much of the period from the mid-1990s to the global financial crisis. Growth accelerated particularly between 2004 and 2007, when real GDP expanded at roughly five per cent a year on average. Fixed investment also rose strongly: the South African Reserve Bank records gross fixed capital formation reaching 23.5 per cent of GDP in 2008. Thereafter, under president Jacob Zuma (2009–2018) the trajectory changed. Growth slowed sharply, investment weakened, unemployment remained extraordinarily high, major state-owned enterprises deteriorated, and infrastructure constraints increasingly became binding on the private economy.
The argument of this paper is that these developments can be interpreted through the concept of institutional regression: a partial movement away from impersonal, rule-bound competition and towards politically mediated allocation, patronage and rent-seeking, accompanied by the consumption of inherited physical and institutional capital. This is not offered as a monocausal explanation. South Africa has also been affected by the global financial crisis, commodity cycles, the pandemic, demographic pressures, the structural legacies of apartheid, educational weakness and global shifts in investment. The claim is narrower and more theoretically interesting: where politically mediated allocation expands, it can alter the selection mechanisms through which firms, public institutions and individuals succeed.
In my 2024 Substack essay, “Thesis of German Right Wing Populism - A Rationale for the Protection of High-performance National Cultures,” I argued that the Western European prosperity take-off was a historically improbable achievement dependent on an intricate constellation of technological, organisational, institutional and cultural preconditions (Schumacher 2024). South Africa suggests an important corollary: such achievements are not only difficult to create and transplant; they are reversible. A society may retain the outward architecture of modernity while weakening the mechanisms required for its reproduction.
Modern market society is easily mistaken for a natural condition. Historically it is anything but. For most of human history, economic opportunity was embedded in status, kinship, clan, inherited privilege, personal loyalty and political patronage. Max Weber’s contrast between patrimonial and rational-legal authority captures one dimension of the transformation. Douglass North’s institutional economics captures another: modern growth depends on credible rules that shape expectations and reduce the importance of arbitrary personal discretion.
North, Wallis and Weingast provide an especially useful framework. Their distinction between limited-access orders and open-access orders turns attention away from the mere existence of markets or formal constitutions and towards the rules governing entry into organisations, economic competition and political power (North, Wallis and Weingast 2009). Open access is historically rare. It depends on impersonal rules and on the ability of individuals to form organisations without requiring discretionary permission from powerful patrons.
The rule of law and competitive markets – and I should add open discourses (Schumacher 2025) - are therefore mutually reinforcing components of a single institutional achievement: the replacement of personalised allocation by impersonal selection. Hayek’s account of competition as a discovery procedure identifies the informational advantage of such a system. Firms are tested by customers, prices and rival producers; capital can move away from persistently unsuccessful uses; and no political authority has to know in advance which entrepreneur, technology or organisation should succeed (Hayek 1945).
Patron-client systems select according to a different criterion. As politically allocated opportunities become more important, economic actors rationally invest more heavily in relationships with those who control access. The relevant question becomes not only what one can produce, but whom one knows, which classification one must satisfy, which official controls a licence or contract, and which political coalition can protect one’s position. Rent-seeking theory explains why the creation of politically allocable rents can divert resources away from productive entrepreneurship towards competition for privilege (Tullock 1967; Krueger 1974).
The post-apartheid economy should be divided analytically into phases. The early ANC governments inherited severe inequalities and institutional distortions, but also a developed industrial base, deep capital markets and sophisticated professional sectors. The 1996 Growth, Employment and Redistribution programme marked a clear move towards fiscal restraint, openness and macroeconomic stability. This period did not eliminate unemployment or inequality, but it does demonstrate that ANC rule and relatively liberal economic policy were not initially incompatible.
The strongest growth phase came in the 2000s. Mahadea (2010) reports average real GDP growth of about five per cent during 2004-2007. Investment rose at the same time. By 2008, gross fixed capital formation had reached 23.5 per cent of GDP, compared with 15.2 per cent in 2002. The subsequent decline is striking: by 2024, gross fixed capital formation had fallen to 14.5 per cent of GDP (SARB 2025a). This is not a minor fluctuation but a large reduction in the share of national output devoted to building future productive capacity.
The growth record similarly deteriorated, with real GDP per capita falling. The IMF describes South Africa’s growth as having stagnated over the preceding decade and identifies governance, business regulation, electricity, logistics and labour-market rigidities among the structural constraints (IMF 2025a; IMF 2025b). The labour market is an especially severe indicator of failure to generate opportunities at scale. Statistics South Africa recorded an official unemployment rate of 31.4 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2025 and 32.7 per cent in the first quarter of 2026, corresponding to more than eight million unemployed people in Q1 2026. One should be cautious about comparing current official unemployment directly with older expanded measures, but the present magnitude is indisputably exceptional.
The political demand for economic transformation after apartheid was unavoidable and legitimate. A system that deliberately excluded the majority from ownership, skilled occupations and economic mobility could obviously not be maintained by the new government standing opposed to these inherited inequalities. The decisive institutional question is therefore not whether transformation was necessary, but how transformation was pursued.
Black Economic Empowerment, and later Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment, increasingly made racial transformation criteria relevant to ownership, management, procurement and relations between firms and government. The academic literature is contested and should be represented as such. Southall (2007) treats BEE as an important element of the post-apartheid political settlement while documenting concerns about elite enrichment. Tangri and Southall (2008) argue that politically connected individuals disproportionately benefited from empowerment transactions and that the policy had done less for the mass of disadvantaged South Africans.
The libertarian critique developed here is institutional. Any system - regardless of the identity categories it employs - can strengthen patronage if political authorities acquire broad discretionary power over valuable economic opportunities. When procurement, licences, financing, appointments and regulatory advantages become contingent on politically administered criteria, economic actors have incentives to invest in political access. This need not mean that every beneficiary is corrupt or that every empowerment policy is illegitimate. It means that the mechanism creates additional margins on which political connection can acquire economic value.
The distinction between productive entrepreneurship and political entrepreneurship is therefore central. In an impersonal competitive order, an entrepreneur’s principal problem is to satisfy customers better than rivals. In a politically mediated order, an increasing share of entrepreneurial energy is devoted to satisfying gatekeepers. The social return on the second activity can be negative even when the private return is high.
An advanced economy lives partly from accumulated capital. The most visible form is physical: power stations, transmission lines, railways, ports, roads, water systems and machinery. But there is also human capital and institutional capital. A functioning utility embodies maintenance routines, engineering knowledge, procurement competence, internal controls, professional norms and networks of experienced personnel. None of these can be recreated instantly.
This creates a deceptive lag between institutional deterioration and visible collapse. A power station can continue producing after maintenance discipline weakens. A railway can continue moving freight while signalling systems and rolling stock deteriorate. A municipality can continue delivering water while engineering departments lose experienced staff. The inherited capital stock masks the deterioration until failures become nonlinear and cumulative.
South Africa’s investment data are consistent with this concern. The decline in gross fixed capital formation from 23.5 per cent of GDP in 2008 to 14.5 per cent in 2024 means that less of current output is being converted into future productive capacity. This figure alone cannot prove ‘capital consumption’ in the Austrian sense, but it strongly supports the narrower proposition that the economy’s investment effort has weakened substantially. Also, even this much reduced figure might in part represent the mere premature replacement of capital stock due to theft and vandalism, rather than real capital formation. The problems at Eskom - South Africa’s state-owned electricity company – are perhaps the clearest case of capital deterioration on post-apartheid South Africa. For decades South Africa possessed abundant and inexpensive electricity, based largely on on large coal-fired power stations constructed before 1994. From the late 2000s onward, inadequate investment and maintenance, management failures, corruption, procurement problems, and rapidly mounting debt contributed to declining reliability. Eskom can be regarded as institutional microcosm highlighting more general problems in South Africa’s state sector.
Eskom is the most obvious and dramatic illustration of capital consumption and capacity degeneration. It is particularly obvious in its devastation because electricity is foundational infrastructure for the whole economy. “Load-shedding”, scheduled electricity blackouts used to prevent collapse of the national grid, began in 2007-08 and ultimately became chronic. The Centre for Renewable and Sustainable Energy Studies at Stellenbosch University, using Eskom and regulator data, estimates that South Africa experienced 6,838 hours of national load-shedding in 2023 - roughly 78 per cent of the hours in the year. Eskom reported load-shedding on 329 days during its 2023/24 financial year.
The financial burden also became extraordinary. In the 2023 Budget, National Treasury announced an Eskom debt-relief package of R254 billion, explicitly recognising that the utility’s debt problem had become a sovereign fiscal issue (National Treasury 2023). The scale of the intervention is important to the paper’s thesis: monopoly failure can be sustained for long periods because losses are socialised through taxation, sovereign borrowing and state guarantees rather than immediately disciplining the organisation through exit or bankruptcy.
The economic cost radiates outward. Firms and households respond to unreliable electricity by purchasing generators, inverters, batteries and solar panels. These investments are rational from the perspective of the individual actor, but much of the capital is defensive: it duplicates infrastructure that the electricity system was supposed to supply. The same rand cannot simultaneously finance backup power and an additional production line.
Literal Capital Consumption: The Theft and Destruction of Infrastructure
In South Africa the concept of capital consumption is not only an abstract economic concept. One of its most striking manifestations is the literal physical destruction and removal of accumulated public capital. Electricity cables, transformers, substations, signalling equipment and railway infrastructure are repeatedly vandalised or stolen, often for the scrap value of their copper and other components. Eskom continues to identify theft and vandalism of transformers, mini-substations, pylons and electrical cables as a serious threat to electricity supply. The rail system has suffered the same phenomenon on an extraordinary scale. Transnet reported that the length of cable stolen annually from its network increased from approximately 120 kilometres in 2017 to 724 kilometres in 2021, while the number of incidents rose from fewer than 2,000 to nearly 4,500.
This represents capital consumption in its most literal form. Infrastructure accumulated through decades of investment is physically dismantled and converted into scrap. The private value recovered by the thief may represent only a minute fraction of the social value destroyed. A relatively small quantity of stolen copper can disable signalling, immobilise trains or interrupt electricity supply across an entire neighbourhood. Society subsequently has to devote new investment merely to restoring the productive capacity it already possessed.
Gross investment figures consequently understate the severity of the problem. If a state spends one billion rand replacing infrastructure that has been stolen or vandalised, the expenditure appears as new investment even though the society may merely have reconstructed yesterday’s capital stock. Resources that could have expanded productive capacity are instead consumed reproducing what already existed.
The process also generates a second-order cost. Infrastructure that cannot safely be left unguarded requires increasingly expensive protection. Security expenditure rises, repairs must be hardened against further theft, businesses construct alternative systems, and transport users shift from rail towards roads. Capital is therefore diverted simultaneously into replacing destroyed assets and defending the remaining stock.
This phenomenon reveals an elementary but often overlooked institutional precondition of advanced civilisation: the physical capital stock must be sufficiently secure that society can accumulate rather than repeatedly reconstruct it. Modern infrastructure presupposes a functioning system of property protection even when that property belongs to the state. Railway lines, electrical substations, telecommunications cables and water infrastructure extend across enormous territories and cannot economically be defended meter by meter. Their viability therefore depends upon a background social and legal order in which systematic predation is exceptional.
When this condition deteriorates, the economics of infrastructure itself changes. The railway becomes not merely a transport system but an immense inventory of exposed copper. The electricity distribution network becomes a dispersed stock of transformers, cables and metals available for extraction. An infrastructure network constructed to increase the productivity of society is partially transformed into a resource deposit to be mined by predatory actors.
This is institutional regression in an unusually literal sense. A modern capital-intensive system is being subjected to an older extractive logic in which accumulated productive assets are consumed for immediate appropriation. The contrast with productive entrepreneurship could hardly be sharper. The productive entrepreneur combines resources to create an asset whose future value exceeds its present inputs. The infrastructure thief performs the reverse operation: he destroys an asset with high future productive value in order to realise a small immediate scrap value. One creates capital. The other liquidates it.
Where theft reaches sufficient scale, economic development therefore runs backwards not only because insufficient new capital is being created but because yesterday’s capital is being physically dismantled faster than society can replace it. The South African rail and electricity networks thus provide perhaps the most tangible illustration of the wider thesis of this paper: civilisation is not simply inherited. Its accumulated capital has to be protected, maintained and reproduced. Once the institutional order can no longer reliably perform these elementary functions, the capital stock itself begins to disappear.
The same logic applies inside the state. Complex institutions depend on selection mechanisms that reward competence, preserve tacit knowledge and sustain professional norms. If political loyalty becomes an important appointment criterion, the selection environment changes. The ANC’s practice of cadre deployment is therefore significant not merely as partisan behaviour but as an institutional mechanism. Scholarship has associated cadre deployment with political interference, weakened accountability and governance problems, while recognising that public-sector failure has multiple causes (Mlambo, Zubane and Thusi 2022).
The state-capture period under Jacob Zuma intensified this problem. South African scholarship and official inquiries describe a process in which networks linked to political power sought influence over appointments, procurement and state-owned enterprises. Dassah (2018) analyses state capture as a governance problem in South Africa, while Mathebula and Masiya (2022) connect governance failure and capture to the performance of Eskom and Transnet. The Zondo Commission’s findings provide the most extensive official record of the phenomenon.
The relevance to economic performance lies not only in money stolen. Patronage changes what institutions select for. A technically complex organisation can survive political interference for a time because it inherits engineers, routines, plants, inventories and professional cultures built earlier. But if appointments, procurement and promotion systematically cease to reward competence and integrity, institutional capital is slowly consumed.
The evolution of Black Economic Empowerment provides perhaps the clearest illustration of the institutional mechanism explored in this paper. The objective of BEE was understandable and, after apartheid, politically unavoidable: to broaden black participation in an economy whose ownership, management and professional strata remained disproportionately white. The crucial question, however, is not the legitimacy of this objective but the institutional mechanism chosen to pursue it.
The distinctive achievement of the modern competitive order is the progressive replacement of status-based allocation by impersonal selection under general rules. In this respect BEE contains a paradox. Apartheid represented an extreme system of politically imposed racial status, excluding individuals from occupations, property and economic opportunities according to racial classification. The post-apartheid state dismantled this system but, in attempting to overcome its inherited consequences, retained racial status as an instrument of economic allocation, now operating in the opposite direction and for radically different purposes.
The original Black Economic Empowerment programme subsequently developed into the more comprehensive system of Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (B-BBEE), formalised principally through the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act of 2003 and subsequently strengthened and amended. Rather than functioning simply as a racial ownership quota, B-BBEE developed an elaborate scorecard through which companies are assessed according to such criteria as black ownership, management control, skills development, enterprise and supplier development and socioeconomic development. These ratings become particularly consequential for firms seeking government procurement, licences, concessions or business relationships with other firms whose own B-BBEE standing is affected by their procurement decisions.
B-BBEE therefore reaches beyond the direct relationship between the state and the individual firm. The regulatory incentives propagate through supply chains. A company seeking to improve its own rating has reason to prefer appropriately rated suppliers, which in turn have incentives to restructure ownership, management, procurement and training arrangements in accordance with politically determined transformation criteria. Political objectives thereby become embedded within private economic selection.
This does not make corruption inevitable. Nor should BEE itself simply be equated with corruption. The more important institutional argument is that the system increased the number and value of economic opportunities whose allocation depended upon politically defined classifications, regulatory compliance and administrative discretion.
The consequences were visible relatively early. Tangri and Southall’s study of BEE concluded in 2008 that the programme had generated controversy partly because its benefits had accrued disproportionately to politically connected individuals rather than to the mass of previously disadvantaged South Africans. Southall had already identified tensions between the broad developmental aspirations of empowerment and the emergence of a relatively narrow black capitalist elite.
This outcome was not entirely accidental to the institutional structure. Early empowerment transactions often required established corporations to transfer significant equity stakes to black investors who did not possess sufficient capital to purchase those stakes conventionally. Financing structures consequently became complex, while politically influential individuals could become particularly attractive commercial partners. Political connectivity itself could acquire economic value.
An emblematic new figure consequently entered South African political economy: the “tenderpreneur”— an entrepreneur whose competitive advantage derives substantially from access to government procurement and political networks. The term captures the distinction central to the argument of this paper. Productive entrepreneurship seeks profit by discovering what customers want and supplying it more effectively than competitors. Political entrepreneurship seeks opportunities generated or allocated by government.
Preferential procurement substantially increases the potential domain of the latter. Government procurement no longer evaluates potential suppliers exclusively according to price, quality, competence and reliability but simultaneously pursues politically prescribed transformation objectives. Whatever the legitimacy of those objectives, multiplying the criteria governing procurement necessarily creates a more complex administrative selection process and potentially increases official discretion.
The problem becomes considerably more serious when such discretion intersects with party-political patronage. The interaction between BEE procurement requirements, cadre deployment and ANC patronage networks therefore deserves particular attention. Political power influences appointments; politically appointed officials exercise discretion over procurement; procurement creates opportunities for politically connected businesses; successful beneficiaries acquire wealth and influence; and these resources can in turn reinforce the political networks through which the opportunities were originally allocated.
The potential cycle is therefore: political power → appointments → procurement discretion → politically connected businesses → private enrichment → political influence → political power. Patronage thereby acquires the possibility of becoming self-reproducing.
The phenomenon of B-BBEE “fronting” provides another indication of the distortions generated by the system. Businesses have sometimes constructed nominal black ownership, management or partnership arrangements in order to obtain empowerment credentials without transferring the substantive economic benefits that the legislation intended. The B-BBEE Commission itself recognises fronting, falsification and misrepresentation of empowerment credentials as enforcement problems.
Fronting is particularly revealing from an institutional perspective because it represents entrepreneurial adaptation to regulation. Once regulatory classifications acquire substantial economic value, entrepreneurs invest resources in satisfying, circumventing or manipulating those classifications. Human ingenuity has not disappeared; its direction has changed. This is the central economic problem. Corruption is usually conceived too narrowly as theft: public money disappears, contracts are inflated, officials receive bribes or politically connected individuals acquire unjustified wealth. These are serious losses, but they may be smaller than the dynamic losses generated by the corruption of the selection mechanism itself.
Once political access affects the expected return on economic activity, rational entrepreneurs invest in political access. Resources that under an impersonal competitive order might have been invested in products, technologies, skills, productivity improvements and cost reductions can instead be invested in relationships, compliance structures, politically advantageous partnerships and access to public procurement.
The entrepreneur increasingly confronts two possible routes to success: satisfying customers within an impersonal market or acquiring advantageous access to politically allocated opportunities. To the extent that the latter becomes more profitable, society selects for political rather than productive entrepreneurship.
This distinction allows the effects of BEE to be incorporated into the wider argument about institutional regression without making the simplistic claim that BEE “caused” South Africa’s decline. State capture, cadre deployment, corruption, deteriorating state-owned enterprises, labour-market regulation, educational failures, crime and other factors possess independent causal significance. BEE must be understood as one component within a larger institutional ecology.
Nevertheless, BEE is theoretically important because it illustrates a fundamental tension between status and contract. Apartheid itself represented an extreme system of status-based economic allocation. Race determined where individuals could live, which occupations they could enter, what property they could own and which economic opportunities were available to them. One possible post-apartheid trajectory would have been the complete replacement of this racialised allocation system by universal individual rights and unrestricted competition under general rules.
South Africa chose a different path. Racial restrictions against black South Africans were abolished, but racial classification was retained as an instrument for engineering the distribution of economic opportunities in favour of previously disadvantaged groups. There is no moral equivalence between these systems. Apartheid was a comprehensive system of racial domination and exclusion, whereas BEE is explicitly conceived as a remedial programme intended to overcome the consequences of that injustice. The institutional comparison is narrower but nevertheless significant: both depart from the principle that individuals should compete for economic opportunities without racial classification entering the selection process.
The post-apartheid state therefore confronted the consequences of an historical system of status by creating a new, remedial system of status rather than completing the transition from status to contract. This decision has consequences extending beyond racial preference itself because political allocation creates constituencies around its continuation. Individuals and businesses possessing valuable BEE positions, intermediary functions, procurement relationships and regulatory expertise acquire an economic interest in maintaining the regulatory system through which those advantages are generated. A policy initially justified as a transitional mechanism can thereby develop its own beneficiaries and institutional permanence.
South Africa’s deterioration in international measures of its business environment is consistent with, although it cannot by itself establish, this interpretation. In the World Bank’s former Doing Business rankings, South Africa fell from roughly the mid-thirties globally in the late 2000s to 84th of 190 economies in the final 2020 edition. The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom likewise records a deterioration from a score of 62.5 and 75th place in 2014 to 58.6 and 100th place in 2026.
Neither measure establishes BEE as the cause of this deterioration. The methodologies also change over time and rankings depend upon the performance and number of other countries. They should therefore be treated as corroborating indicators rather than causal evidence. Their direction is nevertheless significant when considered alongside declining fixed investment, infrastructure deterioration, state capture and the expansion of regulatory burdens. South Africa has not abolished capitalism. Private property, corporations, financial markets and entrepreneurship continue to exist, and important parts of its private economy remain highly sophisticated. This is precisely what makes the South African case theoretically interesting.
Institutional regression does not require the abolition of markets. A market economy can remain formally intact while an expanding layer of politically mediated allocation develops around it. Entrepreneurs continue competing, but an increasing proportion of entrepreneurial calculation becomes concerned with navigating political classifications, regulatory requirements and relationships with the state.
The distinction is therefore not simply between capitalism and socialism. It is between two different mechanisms operating within an ostensibly capitalist economy: impersonal market competition and personalised or politically mediated access. The danger arises when the second mechanism begins progressively to colonise the first. Seen from this perspective, the corruption associated with parts of the BEE system represents something more consequential than individual wrongdoing. It contributes to an institutional regression from a society in which economic selection is predominantly governed by performance under general rules towards one in which status, political access and administrative discretion once again become economically decisive.
The historical achievement of competitive capitalism under the rule of law consisted precisely in escaping this older patron-client logic. South Africa demonstrates how easily elements of that logic can re-emerge within the institutional shell of a modern market economy.
Why was the apartheid system—despite its racial discrimination, coercion, and policies fundamentally alien to a liberal order—able to sustain a more capable economy and state administration than the later post-apartheid regime?
The question is uncomfortable, but analytically important. It does not imply any moral equivalence between apartheid and the democratic order that replaced it. Apartheid was an unjust system of racial domination that denied fundamental political, economic, and civic rights to the majority of South Africans. The issue here is narrower: how could a deeply illiberal political order nevertheless preserve comparatively effective administration, infrastructure, and economic coordination, while a formally inclusive and democratic successor state subsequently suffered severe institutional deterioration? One possible answer lies in the distinction between exclusion from an institutional order and politicisation of the institutional order itself.
Apartheid imposed a rigid racial boundary around economic and political participation. The black majority faced restrictions on residence, movement, employment, property holding, education, political representation, and access to public services. In this respect, apartheid profoundly violated the principles of equal citizenship and open competition. Yet within much of the privileged institutional sphere reserved for whites, economic and administrative life could still operate according to relatively impersonal rules. Firms competed. Engineers were appointed because they possessed engineering expertise. Utilities were expected to maintain infrastructure. Public officials worked within bureaucratic hierarchies. Commercial relations were not generally mediated through an elaborate system of racial scoring affecting ownership, management, procurement, subcontracting, and supplier relationships at every level of economic activity.
The apartheid economy was therefore not liberal in the universal sense. But significant parts of its internal administrative and commercial order retained features normally associated with modern capitalist institutions: technical competence, professional hierarchy, relatively predictable rules, property rights, contractual enforcement, and bureaucratic continuity. This distinction helps explain an apparent paradox. A state may be profoundly unjust in determining who is admitted to an institutional order, while still maintaining relatively high levels of competence in the operation of that order among those admitted to it.
The post-apartheid settlement correctly abolished the racial caste system and established universal citizenship. This was an enormous liberal advance. The historical opportunity after 1994 was therefore to dismantle the racial boundary while extending the strongest elements of the inherited institutional order to the population as a whole.
In principle, this could have meant universalising equal legal rights while preserving and enlarging an impersonal system of professional administration, open competition, property rights, and technical competence. Instead, however, a different process gradually emerged. Increasingly, racial and political criteria entered directly into the internal mechanisms by which appointments, ownership, procurement, contracting, and advancement were determined.
We have raised the question: Why could an Illiberal Apartheid State nevertheless sustain a comparatively more capable Modern economy compared with the post-apartheid society?
Part of the answer developed in this paper concerns incentives: corruption, cadre deployment, B-BBEE, procurement preferences and the emergence of a political patronage economy. But incentives operate within cultures. Institutions cannot be reduced to legislation, organizational charts and physical assets. They also depend upon habits, expectations and behavioural norms that have accumulated historically.
The argument advanced here is therefore that South Africa inherited in 1994 not merely a stock of mines, factories, power stations, railways, universities, courts and administrative organizations, but a stock of institutional-cultural capital. This included professional disciplines, bureaucratic routines, technical knowledge, expectations concerning competence and responsibility, commercial practices, and norms concerning the distinction between public office and private interest. Such capital is much harder to transfer.
The cultural histories of the populations that came together within modern South Africa were significantly different. The Dutch and later British settlers arrived from societies that had already travelled a considerable distance along the historical transformation from kinship-based and patrimonial organization towards impersonal law, markets, corporations and professional administration. The indigenous African populations possessed their own complex and viable social institutions, but these had historically been organized to a greater extent around kinship, customary authority, lineage and local community. South Africa’s own post-apartheid government, in describing the historical institution of traditional leadership, has acknowledged the importance of tribal structures, patriarchy, ascriptive status and traditional authority in precolonial social organization. This distinction has nothing to do with innate racial capacities. It concerns different trajectories of institutional evolution.
What the Dutch Brought to the Cape:
When Dutch settlement began at the Cape in the seventeenth century, its settlers did not arrive institutionally empty-handed. They came from one of the most commercially advanced societies of early modern Europe. The Netherlands had developed sophisticated markets, private property, maritime commerce, banking and contractual institutions. Dutch commercial society routinely coordinated economic activity among strangers rather than exclusively among relatives. The corporation, commercial contract, credit relationship and legally transferable property had already greatly expanded the sphere of impersonal cooperation. This matters profoundly.
A modern market order is remarkable precisely because it permits individuals who have no family relationship, tribal affiliation or personal allegiance to cooperate. A merchant does not need to know the family of every customer. A lender does not need to belong to the borrower’s clan. A business owner can employ a stranger. Property can be bought from someone outside one’s community. Disputes can be submitted to courts according to general legal rules rather than negotiated exclusively through kinship groups.
The Dutch also brought Roman-Dutch law, which became one of the foundations of South African private law. Thus from the beginning European settlement carried with it a conception of property, contract and legally constituted economic relationships capable of extending beyond personal networks.
The Afrikaner society that subsequently emerged was not simply a transplanted Dutch society. Frontier conditions, farming, geographical dispersion, conflict and interaction with African societies produced a distinctive culture. Afrikaners developed particularly powerful forms of internal solidarity, reinforced by the Dutch Reformed Church and eventually by Afrikaner nationalism.
This is an important qualification because Afrikaners themselves were certainly capable of particularism. During the twentieth century, Afrikaner nationalism created dense political, cultural and economic networks. Party allegiance, ethnic solidarity and organized efforts to advance Afrikaners sometimes competed directly against universalistic meritocratic principles. The history therefore cannot be reduced to Europeans practising pure meritocracy while Africans practised patronage. The relevant distinction is one of degree, institutional development and competing principles.
The British Contribution: Administration, Professions and Commercial Modernity
British rule added another institutional layer. Britain brought administrative practices associated with an increasingly professional modern state as well as commercial institutions connected to what had become the world’s leading industrial economy. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, South Africa became integrated into British systems of finance, mining, engineering, law, accounting and international commerce.
The mineral revolution intensified this transformation. Modern deep-level mining could not be organized primarily through kinship relationships. It required extraordinarily complex organizations employing engineers, geologists, accountants, financiers, lawyers, technicians and managers. Railways had to run according to timetables. Mines had to satisfy engineering constraints. Banks had to maintain accounts. Electricity systems had to balance physical loads. Industrial capitalism therefore imposed a powerful discipline of its own: technical reality is indifferent to political identity. A turbine works or it does not. A railway delivers freight or it does not. An engineer understands the system or does not. A balance sheet eventually reconciles or exposes losses. The culture surrounding these institutions consequently attached authority increasingly to specialized knowledge, qualifications, organizational hierarchy and measurable performance. This was the institutional-cultural environment within which twentieth-century South Africa accumulated much of its physical capital.
From Kinship to the Impersonal Order
The deeper historical distinction can be expressed as the movement from particularistic to impersonal social organization. In a kinship-intensive order, the individual’s most reliable relationships are ordinarily with family, extended kin, lineage and local community. Obligations are reciprocal and personal. Assistance is provided because of who someone is in relation to oneself. Such arrangements are neither irrational nor uniquely African. They constituted the normal form of human social organization for most of history. European societies themselves were once organized much more extensively through kinship, dynasty, religious affiliation, patronage and personal loyalty. The emergence of modernity required a gradual expansion of a radically different principle: cooperation among strangers according to general rules.
Max Weber captured one dimension of this transformation in his distinction between patrimonial authority and rational-legal bureaucracy. In a patrimonial order, political authority and personal relationships overlap. Positions can become resources belonging effectively to those who control them. Offices generate opportunities for dependants, relatives and clients. Loyalty travels through persons. In an impersonal bureaucracy, by contrast, the office is theoretically independent of the person occupying it. The minister does not own the ministry. The procurement officer does not legitimately distribute contracts among relatives. The successful operation of such a system depends upon more than formal regulations. It requires individuals to have internalized the legitimacy of these distinctions.
Indigenous African Institutions:
Precolonial black South African societies developed sophisticated institutions suited to their own social and economic circumstances, but their organizing principles differed substantially from those of industrial north-western Europe. Kinship, lineage, extended family, customary law and traditional leadership occupied important positions. Political authority was frequently embedded in relationships between chiefs, communities, families and councils rather than separated into the impersonal organizations characteristic of the modern bureaucratic state. Traditional authority continues to occupy a constitutionally recognized position in contemporary South Africa, illustrating the persistence as well as adaptation of these institutions.
It would be misleading, however, to imagine a single unchanging “black culture.” Zulu, Xhosa, Sotho, Tswana, Venda and other societies possessed different histories and institutions. Christianity, urbanization, migrant labour, industrial employment and education transformed them dramatically during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Nor should modern ANC patronage simply be labelled a survival of tribal society. Contemporary patronage is created partly by modern political incentives: control over public appointments, procurement budgets and state-owned companies can produce patron-client networks in almost any culture. Nevertheless, older social structures can matter because institutional modernization involves changing the radius of social obligation—from obligations predominantly structured through known persons towards systems in which strangers are routinely treated according to abstract rules.
That transition took centuries in Europe. There was never a plausible reason to assume that it could simply be bypassed elsewhere by writing a constitution.
At this point, however, the argument turns back upon apartheid itself. The apartheid state could point to highly competent institutions dominated by whites, but apartheid systematically obstructed the process through which black South Africans might have accumulated equivalent institutional experience.
From Inclusion to Replacement:
The liberal solution to the injustice inherited in 1994 would have been universalization. Remove every racial barrier. Open every occupation. Permit unrestricted upward mobility. And above all, preserve institutional knowledge by ensuring continuity between experienced incumbents and the new generation entering the organizations. Such a process would have transformed the racial composition of South African institutions while attempting to preserve their institutional capital.
Instead, transformation increasingly became about changing the institurtions’ demographic composition according to politically determined targets. Once demographic representation becomes an objective independent of the available distribution of skills and experience, the speed of personnel replacement can exceed the speed at which institutional competence can be reproduced.
The danger becomes still greater when demographic transformation combines with cadre deployment. Political loyalty now enters alongside racial identity as a criterion affecting appointment. Research on contemporary South African public administration identifies an enduring conflict between cadre deployment and meritocratic professionalization.
The Return of the Patron-Client Principle:
This provides one possible cultural dimension of South Africa’s regression. The transformation should not be understood crudely as a return of “tribalism.” Something more complex occurred. Traditional particularistic social obligations encountered a modern state controlling enormous resources. The result could be a modern patron-client system. The political party controls appointments. Officials control contracts. Businesspeople cultivate political relationships. Those obtaining positions acquire obligations toward the networks that helped them acquire those positions.
There is a further historical irony that complicates the commonplace identification of apartheid with capitalist interests. In important respects, particularly in the labour market, apartheid represented not the unrestricted operation of capitalism but its political suppression in favour of racially protected white labour.
The roots of this arrangement predated the formal establishment of apartheid in 1948. White workers had long feared competition from black workers who could perform jobs at lower wages, and organised white labour sought political protection against precisely the labour-market substitution that an unrestricted capitalist economy would have encouraged. The alliance between Afrikaner nationalism and sections of organised white labour was already visible in the National Party–Labour Party Pact government of 1924, and the broader tradition of what historians have termed “white labourism” combined working-class economic protection with racial exclusion.
The industrial colour bar and subsequent job-reservation system can therefore be understood partly as a form of racial labour protectionism. Certain occupations were reserved for whites, wage structures protected white workers from lower-paid competition, and black occupational advancement was administratively constrained. These arrangements protected the economic position of white workers precisely by preventing employers from freely selecting workers according to productivity and cost. This produced an important conflict between political apartheid and the logic of the market.
Private employers frequently had a commercial incentive to circumvent, relax, or oppose racial job restrictions. Where a capable black worker could perform a task that legislation, union agreements, or established practice reserved for a more expensive white employee, the employer’s profit motive pointed toward racial integration. Economic historians have shown that the actual boundaries of job reservation were repeatedly contested between employers and white trade unions, and that shortages of suitably skilled white workers contributed to the gradual erosion of occupational restrictions.
This is particularly revealing from a libertarian perspective. Racial segregation was not continuously reproduced by voluntary market exchange. On the contrary, market exchange repeatedly generated pressures against segregation. Employers wanted access to a larger labour pool; firms wanted to employ workers capable of performing the required tasks; black workers sought access to better occupations; and mutually advantageous transactions therefore tended to cross the racial boundaries imposed by political institutions. The state had to prevent these transactions.
In this respect, apartheid illustrates a general proposition associated with classical-liberal economics: discrimination can certainly exist in markets, but systematic exclusion becomes much easier to sustain when the state prevents competitors from profiting by disregarding it. An employer who refuses to employ a productive worker because of race bears a competitive cost if another employer is free to hire that worker. A statutory colour bar removes this competitive mechanism by prohibiting or restricting precisely the transaction that would otherwise undermine discrimination.
The contradiction became increasingly severe as the South African economy industrialised. Modern industry required skilled and semi-skilled labour faster than the white population could supply it. Employers therefore faced growing economic pressure to train, promote, and employ black workers in occupations from which racial regulation sought to exclude them. Research on apartheid labour markets finds that shortages and changing skill patterns contributed materially to the relaxation of job reservation.
There is consequently a striking inversion of the familiar picture of apartheid as the straightforward political expression of capitalist interests. Parts of South African capital undoubtedly benefited from apartheid, not least from the availability and political control of low-paid black labour, and major businesses frequently accommodated themselves to the regime. The claim should therefore not be exaggerated into a general opposition between “capitalism” and “apartheid.”
But within the labour market there was nonetheless a recurrent structural conflict. White organised labour had an interest in restricting competition; employers had an interest in expanding the pool of usable labour. The apartheid state frequently intervened on the side of the former by enforcing racial occupational boundaries.
This helps explain another aspect of the institutional paradox examined in this chapter. Apartheid’s racial system represented a politically imposed distortion of an economy that otherwise contained strong market institutions. The discriminatory boundary continually required reinforcement because ordinary economic incentives tended to erode it.
This differs in an interesting way from the later B-BBEE system. Under apartheid, a profit-seeking employer might find himself wanting to violate racial regulation in order to employ the worker he considered most productive. Under B-BBEE and related procurement regimes, by contrast, government regulation can make racial classification itself economically valuable to the firm. The entrepreneur therefore has an incentive not merely to endure the political classification but to incorporate it into corporate strategy—through ownership structures, procurement relationships, partnerships, and access to state contracts.
The comparison is not morally symmetrical. Apartheid denied opportunities to the majority in order to protect a racial minority, whereas B-BBEE is intended to remedy the inherited consequences of that exclusion. The institutional comparison concerns something different: the relation between political racial classification and market incentives.
Under the apartheid colour bar, market incentives frequently pulled against racial regulation.
Under a sufficiently pervasive preference and procurement regime, market actors can instead be induced to compete through the racial-regulatory system itself.
That distinction reinforces the broader argument of this chapter. Apartheid erected an extraordinarily unjust political barrier around large portions of the economy, but the competitive mechanism operating behind and against that barrier retained a degree of autonomy. The later system risks making political classification endogenous to economic competition itself.
The libertarian lesson is therefore especially revealing: one of the forces steadily undermining apartheid’s labour-market segregation was precisely the capitalist search for productive labour. The employer who wanted to hire the capable black worker was not necessarily motivated by egalitarian conviction. He did not need to be. The price system supplied its own incentive to disregard a politically imposed racial boundary.
An extraordinary measure of South Africa’s changed international standing came in February 2025, when President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the United States government to facilitate the resettlement of Afrikaners claiming racial discrimination in South Africa. The historical reversal was striking. Thirty years after the end of apartheid, members of the population that had constituted South Africa’s politically dominant racial minority were being designated by an American administration as potential refugees from racial discrimination under the successor regime.
The episode should be approached cautiously. Some of the rhetoric surrounding it—particularly claims that South Africa is experiencing a state-sponsored “white genocide” or a systematic programme of confiscating white-owned farms—goes considerably beyond what the available evidence establishes. Nevertheless, Trump’s intervention did not arise from nothing. It brought together several genuine and long-running controversies within post-apartheid South Africa: racially differentiated economic policies, land reform and property rights, violent attacks on farmers, inflammatory racial rhetoric, and a broader deterioration in relations between Pretoria and Washington.
The Unresolved Land Question: Land ownership was inevitably one of the most difficult questions inherited from apartheid. The 1994 constitutional settlement simultaneously protected property rights and committed the new political order to land restitution and reform. Progress proved much slower than many ANC supporters expected, while agricultural land remained disproportionately white-owned. The resulting frustration created increasing political pressure for more radical redistribution. The Economic Freedom Fighters in particular campaigned for expropriation without compensation, while the ANC itself eventually moved in the same direction, although with considerably more qualifications.
The controversy culminated in President Cyril Ramaphosa’s signing of the Expropriation Act in January 2025. The legislation replaced the apartheid-era Expropriation Act of 1975 and permits nil compensation in specified circumstances where this is considered just and equitable. This immediately attracted Trump’s attention. His executive order of 7 February 2025 presented the legislation much more dramatically, describing the South African government as having adopted a law enabling it to seize the agricultural property of ethnic-minority Afrikaners without compensation.
That description requires qualification. The Expropriation Act is not textually a law for confiscating white-owned farms. Its provisions are not formally restricted to a particular racial group, and nil compensation is permitted only under specified circumstances. Nor had South Africa embarked upon a general programme of confiscating white farms under the legislation.
Nevertheless, the underlying property-rights controversy is real. Critics argue that allowing the state to acquire property for nil compensation weakens the security of ownership and increases political discretion. The Democratic Alliance, despite participating with the ANC in the Government of National Unity, has challenged the legislation, as have other civil-society organisations.
The controversy therefore illustrates precisely the distinction important to the wider argument of this paper. The strongest claims made in American political rhetoric need not be accepted in order to recognise a genuine deterioration in confidence concerning the stability and impersonality of South Africa’s property-rights regime.
From BEE to Claims of Racial Discrimination: The Trump administration did not view the land question in isolation. It incorporated it into a broader interpretation of South Africa’s post-apartheid racial policies. Black Economic Empowerment, employment equity and related measures explicitly differentiate among citizens according to racial categories inherited from the apartheid system. Their purpose is remedial: to overcome the economic consequences of centuries of racial discrimination and, in particular, the institutionalised exclusions of apartheid.
The American administration interpreted these policies from a different normative starting point. Rather than emphasising historical redress, it emphasised equal treatment of individuals irrespective of race. From this perspective, policies granting economic preferences according to racial classification constituted discrimination against those excluded from the preferred categories. The February 2025 executive order accordingly referred not merely to land but to government policies allegedly undermining equal opportunity in employment, education and business.
This is important because the refugee policy cannot be understood simply as a response to farm murders. It emerged from a broader diagnosis: that Afrikaners and other white South Africans had changed from being the beneficiaries of a racial state to being a politically disfavoured minority within another system in which racial classification continued to have economic consequences.
The interpretation is contentious. Post-apartheid racial preferences plainly cannot be equated morally or institutionally with apartheid. Apartheid denied fundamental political, residential and economic rights to the majority population and enforced racial domination throughout society. BEE and employment-equity policies operate within a constitutional democracy and are explicitly justified as remedial measures intended to overcome that historical injustice.
Yet the controversy reinforces the institutional paradox identified in the preceding chapter. South Africa abolished an extreme system of racial status without altogether abolishing racial status as a category of economic governance. The direction, objectives and magnitude of discrimination changed fundamentally, but race remained relevant to the allocation of economic opportunities. The Trump administration effectively internationalised the resulting dispute.
Farm Attacks and the Failure of Public Security:
A second strand of the controversy concerns attacks on South African farms. South Africa suffers extraordinarily high levels of violent crime. Farmers and farm workers operate in isolated environments that can make them especially vulnerable to robbery and violent attack, and some farm murders have involved extreme brutality.
Afrikaner organisations, most prominently AfriForum, have for years argued that government has failed adequately to recognise and combat the problem. Farm attacks consequently became an international political issue well before Trump’s second presidency. Trump himself first intervened publicly in August 2018, during his first administration, when he instructed Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to investigate South African land seizures, expropriation and the killing of farmers.
The central empirical dispute is not whether farm attacks occur. They plainly do. The question is whether they constitute evidence of a specifically racial campaign against white farmers or are principally one manifestation of South Africa’s much wider violent-crime epidemic. The evidence does not establish a government-directed campaign to murder white South Africans, and the much stronger description of the situation as a “white genocide” is not supported by the available evidence. A serious argument about the state’s failure to provide security does not require this claim.
Indeed, from the perspective of the present paper, the more significant point is different. The state’s inability to guarantee physical security has contributed to precisely the private substitution mechanism examined elsewhere in this essay. South Africa has developed one of the world’s largest private-security sectors because citizens who lack confidence in public policing purchase protection privately. Farm attacks therefore belong within the wider story of declining confidence in state capacity, even if they cannot legitimately be characterised as evidence of genocide.
The controversy has been intensified enormously by the continued public performance of the struggle song Dubul’ ibhunu, commonly translated as “Kill the Boer” or “Shoot the Boer.” The song emerged from the anti-apartheid struggle and its contemporary defenders insist that it must be interpreted within this historical and political tradition rather than as a literal instruction to murder white farmers. South African courts have also considered the historical context important when assessing the song.
Yet its continued performance at large political rallies, particularly by Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema, inevitably carries a radically different meaning for many Afrikaners. The spectacle of thousands of political activists chanting words translatable as “kill the Boer” while South African farmers are in fact sometimes murdered provides extraordinarily powerful material for those arguing that Afrikaners face racial hostility.
The distinction between symbolic revolutionary rhetoric and literal incitement may be important legally and historically, but it is much harder to sustain politically once such imagery circulates internationally detached from its South African historical context. For the Trump administration and parts of the American political right, the song became visual evidence connecting land redistribution, racial preferences and farm attacks into a single narrative of persecution. Whether or not this synthesis is justified empirically, the South African political system itself supplied much of the material from which it was constructed.
Afrikaner applicants began arriving in the United States through the refugee programme, even as the Trump administration severely restricted refugee admissions from many other parts of the world. Whatever judgment is ultimately made about the justification for this preferential treatment, the historical reversal is remarkable. The Afrikaners had constructed and governed the apartheid state. In 1994 they surrendered their monopoly of political power in exchange for a constitutional settlement founded upon universal citizenship, democratic government, property rights and the rule of law. Three decades later, the government of the world’s most powerful Western democracy was offering members of this formerly dominant minority refugee protection from the political order that succeeded apartheid. This does not establish that the Trump administration’s interpretation of South Africa is correct. It does establish that something extraordinary has happened to international perceptions of South Africa.
The strongest interpretation should be resisted. There is no persuasive evidence of a coordinated South African government programme to kill white citizens. There has been no general confiscation of white-owned farms under the Expropriation Act. Claims of a “white genocide” therefore go considerably beyond the evidence. But rejecting these claims does not require dismissing the underlying phenomena.
South Africa maintains extensive race-conscious economic policies. Its new expropriation legislation has generated genuine controversy concerning property rights. Farm attacks are real within a wider environment of extreme violent crime. Radical political actors continue to employ inflammatory racial rhetoric. And substantial parts of the white population perceive their prospects as increasingly constrained by racial preference policies and deteriorating public institutions. The appropriate conclusion is therefore neither the Trump administration’s strongest persecution narrative nor the opposite assertion that the controversy is wholly invented. Rather, the episode provides another indicator of institutional deterioration.
A successful liberal post-apartheid order would ideally have made racial classification progressively less important as the inherited inequalities of apartheid diminished. It would have strengthened universal citizenship, secure property rights, impersonal economic competition and confidence in the state’s capacity to protect all citizens. Instead, racial classification remains embedded in significant areas of economic policy more than three decades after apartheid; property rights have become newly controversial; the state struggles to guarantee physical security; and racial political rhetoric remains sufficiently inflammatory that an external power can plausibly present members of the country’s historically dominant population as a vulnerable minority. The Trump refugee policy should therefore enter the analysis not as proof of white persecution but as a symptom of South Africa’s failure fully to consolidate an impersonal post-racial liberal order.
It also reinforces the central thesis of this paper. Institutional regression does not require the formal abandonment of constitutional democracy. South Africa retains elections, courts, constitutional rights, private property and sophisticated markets. Yet within this modern institutional framework, status-based allocation, patronage, insecurity and political discretion have expanded sufficiently to undermine confidence in the universality and predictability of the rules.
The extraordinary spectacle of white South Africans applying for refugee status in the United States is therefore less important as evidence for any particular claim made by Donald Trump than as an historical marker. It reveals how far South Africa has travelled from the optimism of 1994—and how fragile the achievement of an impersonal order based upon universal rights, competitive markets and the rule of law can prove to be.
One of the most disturbing manifestations of South Africa’s post-apartheid social deterioration has been the recurrent eruption of xenophobic violence directed overwhelmingly by black South Africans against other black Africans.
The phenomenon complicates any interpretation of contemporary South African conflict primarily through the country’s historical black-white divide. The principal targets have instead been Zimbabweans, Mozambicans, Malawians, Somalis, Ethiopians and migrants from elsewhere on the African continent. The operative distinction is therefore not primarily racial but national: South African versus foreign African.
The violence also exposes an important political-economic dimension of South Africa’s institutional trajectory. In an expanding market economy, competition among individuals and firms is predominantly channelled through productive activity. New entrants simultaneously compete, produce, invest and consume. Economic interaction is therefore potentially positive-sum.
Under conditions of prolonged stagnation, mass unemployment, inadequate public services and politically mediated distribution, however, competition can increasingly be perceived as a struggle between groups over a fixed stock of opportunities.
The question changes from: How can more opportunities be created? to: Who is entitled to the opportunities that remain? South Africa’s xenophobic politics can partly be understood as this transformation of economic competition into distributive group conflict.
The decisive event occurred in May 2008. Violence beginning in Alexandra township in Johannesburg spread through Gauteng and subsequently into other parts of South Africa. Foreign nationals were assaulted, their homes and businesses looted or burned, and people were driven from communities in which they had been living. At least 62 people were killed, hundreds were injured and tens of thousands were displaced or left the country. The victims were overwhelmingly African.
The violence was therefore sometimes described as “black-on-black” conflict, although this formulation obscures the more important distinction. The attackers did not principally select victims because they were black. They attacked them because they were perceived to be foreigners. Indeed, some South African citizens were themselves killed after being mistaken for foreigners. Language, accent, appearance and perceived national origin could become criteria by which mobs distinguished insiders from outsiders. The episode revealed how rapidly the universalistic language of post-apartheid citizenship and African solidarity could break down under conditions of perceived scarcity.
The timing was not accidental. South Africa is by far the most developed large economy in southern Africa and consequently acts as a powerful migration magnet. Economic and political crises in neighbouring countries therefore generate migration towards South Africa. Zimbabwe was particularly important. The economic collapse associated with Robert Mugabe’s later rule, hyperinflation, political repression and declining employment drove large numbers of Zimbabweans southwards. Mozambique, Malawi and other poorer neighbouring countries similarly supplied migrants seeking employment and commercial opportunities.
From a regional perspective this migration was entirely predictable. Capital and labour move towards higher returns. The same economic asymmetry that makes South Africa attractive to international investors makes it attractive to African workers. Yet the receiving society was itself failing to generate sufficient opportunities for its existing population.
South Africa consequently combined two conditions that are politically explosive: regional economic superiority and domestic economic failure. It was prosperous enough relative to its neighbours to attract migrants, while simultaneously generating too little growth and employment to satisfy the expectations of its own citizens.
Mass Unemployment and the Political Economy of Resentment:
This context is essential. South Africa’s unemployment rate has for years remained at levels that would constitute a national emergency in most advanced economies. Youth unemployment is still more extreme. In such circumstances, even economically productive migrants can readily become politically framed as competitors for scarce jobs.
The same mechanism operates in informal markets. Somali, Ethiopian and other migrant entrepreneurs became highly visible in township retailing, particularly through small grocery shops commonly known as spaza shops. Their commercial success sometimes generated resentment among local competitors. Migrants were accused of accepting lower wages, operating businesses on smaller margins and displacing South Africans from employment and trading opportunities.
From a market perspective, these behaviours represent competition. Lower prices benefit consumers. Successful immigrant businesses create economic activity. Migrants earn income and subsequently spend it. Businesses employ workers and purchase supplies. But this positive-sum interpretation requires a social environment in which competitive success retains legitimacy. Where opportunities are perceived as fixed, the successful outsider can instead appear to have taken something that belonged to an insider. Competition becomes interpreted as displacement.
From Market Competition to Entitlement:
This transition is particularly important for the argument of this paper. A competitive market does not ask who deserves a particular economic opportunity according to group membership. It asks whether individuals can persuade customers, employers, investors or contractual partners voluntarily to transact with them. The principle is impersonal.
Nationality, ethnicity and political status become economically irrelevant unless they affect the individual’s capacity to perform. A distributive political order operates differently. Once economic opportunities are conceptualised as a stock to be allocated among politically recognised groups, the identity of the claimant becomes central. Who has priority? Who was historically disadvantaged? Who belongs? Who is entitled? Who has waited longest? Who is consuming resources intended for somebody else?
South Africa’s political economy already answers many economic questions through categories of group entitlement. BEE and employment-equity policies explicitly distribute advantages according to historically defined racial categories. Welfare and public services necessarily distinguish between different classes of claimants. Political rhetoric frequently interprets economic outcomes through collective identities. Anti-immigrant politics introduces another category into this distributive system: citizen versus foreigner. The underlying principle becomes South Africans first.
The Paradox of African Nationalism:
This development is particularly striking given the history of the ANC. The anti-apartheid struggle depended substantially upon solidarity from other African countries. Neighbouring states provided sanctuary, political support and, in some cases, bases for ANC activists despite considerable political and military costs. The ideological language of the liberation movement was correspondingly internationalist and pan-African. Yet post-apartheid South Africa has repeatedly produced intense popular hostility towards migrants from precisely the African continent that supported its liberation.
The contradiction is revealing. Political ideology can proclaim solidarity at the national level while everyday competition for jobs, housing, trading opportunities and public services produces very different incentives locally. Material conditions can overwhelm ideological fraternity.
The 2008 violence was initially interpreted as an extraordinary eruption. However, t did not remain exceptional. Further significant outbreaks occurred in 2015, particularly around Durban and Johannesburg. Foreign-owned businesses were attacked and migrants again fled affected communities. This became a recurring pattern. Another major outbreak followed in 2019.
By then the phenomenon had acquired international consequences. Nigerians and other African nationals were among those attacked, producing anger across the continent and damaging South Africa’s diplomatic standing. Retaliatory demonstrations and attacks against South African commercial interests occurred elsewhere in Africa. A country whose corporations had expanded successfully across the continent was confronting the political consequences of hostility towards Africans who had moved in the opposite direction. The asymmetry was difficult to ignore: South African capital was expected to be welcomed throughout Africa while African labour was increasingly unwelcome in South Africa.
A further stage appeared during the 2020s. Anti-immigrant mobilisation became more organised. Operation Dudula transformed grievances that had previously erupted principally through episodic township violence into a sustained political movement. Its activists demanded stronger immigration enforcement, the removal of undocumented migrants and priority for South African citizens in employment and public services. The name itself—dudula, approximately “push out” or “drive away”—captures the movement’s political logic.
Foreign nationals have been targeted at businesses, workplaces and public facilities. Activists have demanded documentation and attempted to prevent suspected migrants from accessing services. Particularly revealing have been attempts to exclude foreign nationals from public healthcare facilities. The argument is explicitly distributive: medicines, doctors, hospital beds and public resources are scarce; therefore foreigners should not consume resources that belong to South African citizens. This is precisely the politics of scarcity.
The State Loses Its Monopoly over Immigration Enforcement:
There is another institutional dimension. Immigration control is conventionally among the clearest functions of the sovereign state. Government determines who may enter, who may remain and under what conditions non-citizens may work. Yet where citizens perceive government as incapable of controlling borders or enforcing immigration law, private political movements begin attempting to perform this function themselves. Activists demand identity documents. Groups inspect businesses. Migrants are told to leave communities. Access to public facilities is policed informally. Whatever one’s view of South Africa’s immigration policy, this represents another manifestation of weakening state authority. The issue is no longer merely whether immigration is too high or too low. The institutional question is: Who decides? When political movements begin enforcing their own conception of immigration law on streets, workplaces and clinics, the state’s monopoly over legitimate enforcement has begun to erode.
By 2026 anti-immigrant mobilisation had again intensified substantially. Movements including Operation Dudula and March and March organised campaigns demanding stronger enforcement and the prioritisation of South African citizens. Large numbers of migrants subsequently left or were repatriated, while government enforcement also increased. The economic consequences revealed an important contradiction within the anti-immigrant argument. Industries employing substantial numbers of migrants began experiencing labour shortages.
Manufacturing businesses in Newcastle, for example, reported significant losses of migrant workers, including workers possessing skills that could not immediately be replaced locally. This illustrates a general economic principle. The migrant appears politically as a competitor for employment. But to the employer he is also labour. To the consumer he contributes to production. To the landlord he is a tenant.To businesses he is a customer. To the entrepreneur he may be a supplier or employee. Removing the migrant therefore does not simply transfer an existing job to a citizen. Economic relationships reorganise. Businesses may contract. Prices may rise. Investment may decline. Some jobs may disappear altogether. The assumption of a fixed quantity of employment—the “lump of labour” intuition—is therefore misleading.
Immigration and the Positive-Sum Order:
The distinction leads back to the central theoretical argument of this paper. Markets transform strangers into collaborators without requiring them to share ethnicity, nationality, religion or political identity. The employer does not need to regard the migrant as a compatriot. The customer does not need to know the shopkeeper’s ancestry. The supplier does not need to share the buyer’s culture. They require only sufficiently predictable rules of property and contract to cooperate. This is one of the great civilisational achievements of the impersonal market order. It enormously enlarges the circle of potential cooperation.
The stranger ceases to be principally a rival for tribal resources and becomes a potential customer, employee, employer, investor, supplier or contractual partner. Economic growth reinforces this process because expanding opportunities reduce the plausibility of zero-sum interpretations. Institutional and economic regression can push in the opposite direction. As growth disappears, unemployment remains extreme and public services deteriorate, individuals increasingly perceive society as a contest over a fixed stock of resources. The stranger once again becomes a rival.
Patronage and the Politics of Insiders:
This is where xenophobia connects to the patron-client analysis developed earlier. Patronage necessarily distinguishes insiders from outsiders. The patron possesses resources and distributes them among clients. The political struggle therefore concerns membership in the network entitled to receive benefits. Once this logic expands, political competition increasingly takes the form of competing claims to insider status.
BEE asks which historically defined racial categories should receive preference. Cadre deployment asks which political networks should control appointments. Local patronage asks which supporters should receive contracts or positions. Anti-immigrant politics asks which national group should receive jobs and services. These phenomena are not identical and should not be morally or causally conflated.
But they share an institutional tendency: economic opportunities become interpreted increasingly through the identity of the claimant rather than through impersonal competitive selection. The foreign migrant represents the ultimate outsider because he possesses the weakest claim within a nationally bounded distributive system.
It would nevertheless be wrong to claim that South Africa’s economic deterioration mechanically caused xenophobic violence. Hostility towards migrants existed before the economic deterioration examined in this paper. National identity, policing failures, misinformation, criminal networks, political mobilisation and local conflicts all contribute independently. Nor should every objection to uncontrolled immigration be labelled xenophobic. A sovereign state can legitimately determine immigration rules, enforce borders and distinguish citizens from non-citizens in access to particular political rights or publicly financed benefits.
The relevant distinction is between immigration policy administered through general law and collective punishment or violence directed against individuals because of their foreign origin. The latter represents institutional failure rather than immigration control. The significance of xenophobic violence for this argument is therefore diagnostic. It reveals what can happen when mass unemployment, weak state capacity, migration pressure and distributive politics interact.
Two Responses to Institutional Failure:
South Africa now displays two radically different responses to deteriorating institutions. The first is distributive exclusion. When opportunities are scarce, groups attempt to exclude competitors: foreigners from jobs, foreign traders from markets, migrants from public services, outsiders from access to scarce resources. This is fundamentally zero-sum.
The second response is institutional exit and reconstruction. Households install solar panels. Businesses provide their own security. Residential communities manage infrastructure. Private schools and hospitals substitute for public provision. And, at the most radical end of this spectrum, communities such as Orania attempt to assemble an increasingly comprehensive alternative institutional environment.
The contrast is fundamental. One strategy responds to scarcity by asking: Whom can we exclude from the existing stock? The other asks: What can we build ourselves? The first directs entrepreneurial and political energy towards redistribution. The second directs it towards production and institution-building.
From Scarcity Politics Back to Open Competition:
South Africa’s xenophobic episodes therefore provide another warning about the fragility of the impersonal competitive order. Economic competition is peaceful only within an institutional and cultural framework that legitimises the gains of strangers.
The market asks individuals to accept a remarkable proposition: somebody with whom they share no kinship, ethnicity, nationality or political affiliation may legitimately outperform them economically if that person better satisfies the voluntary choices of customers or employers. This proposition is historically unusual.
It requires confidence that the rules are general, that opportunities remain open and that today’s competitive loss does not imply permanent exclusion. When that confidence disappears, competition can revert towards older forms of group conflict. South Africa’s anti-immigrant violence is therefore not merely an immigration issue. It is a manifestation of the deeper institutional problem examined throughout this paper: the displacement of impersonal, positive-sum competition by political struggles over status, entitlement and access.
The tragedy is especially acute because migrants from poorer African countries come to South Africa for precisely the reason that millions of people throughout history have migrated towards successful societies: they seek access to a more productive economic order. If the receiving society responds by treating their productive participation primarily as a claim upon a fixed stock of resources, it demonstrates how far confidence in that expanding order has already deteriorated. The ultimate antidote to xenophobic scarcity politics is therefore not merely tolerance. It is the restoration of a sufficiently dynamic, open and impersonal economic order in which newcomers are principally perceived not as claimants upon a shrinking inheritance but as additional participants in the creation of wealth.
The economic damage of corruption does not primarily lie in redirecting public funds into private pockets. Its deeper effect is to alter the payoff matrix facing everyone else. The classic rent-seeking literature shows that when government creates valuable discretionary privileges, resources will be expended to capture them (Tullock 1967; Krueger 1974). Olson’s theory of distributional coalitions similarly explains how organised groups can accumulate privileges that reduce dynamism over time (Olson 1982).
The mechanism is self-reinforcing. More politically allocated resources increase the value of political connections. Higher returns to connections encourage greater investment in influence. Those who succeed at acquiring influence then have incentives to expand the domain of political allocation. Political office itself becomes an economic asset. Competition does not disappear; it migrates from the market for serving customers toward the market for gaining access to patrons. This is why corruption and patronage can persist even when almost everyone recognises their aggregate cost. Each participant can be responding rationally to an incentive structure that is collectively destructive. Institutional reform therefore requires changing the rules of selection, not merely exhorting individuals to become more virtuous.
South Africa’s distinctive response to institutional failure has been widespread substitution. In security this process long predates the electricity crisis. Research documents extensive interaction between private security firms, neighbourhood organisations and public police, making South Africa an important case of plural or hybrid security provision. Electricity has followed a similar path. Eskom-supplied electricity demand is falling by about three per cent in 2024 partly because of increased private-sector generation uptake. The key institutional fact is that users did not simply wait for the monopoly provider to recover; they invested in exit options. The same logic appears in private schooling, healthcare, gated residential developments and business districts that supplement municipal services. This produces an unusual form of privatisation without a comprehensive privatisation programme. The legal and fiscal state remains extensive, but its effective domain contracts where citizens cease to rely on it.
This should not be romanticised. Private substitution is expensive and unequal. The affluent can purchase parallel systems; the poor often cannot. A household that pays taxes and then pays again for security, electricity backup, education or healthcare bears a duplication cost. Yet the process reveals the resilience of decentralised provision and the limits of formal monopoly when exit becomes technologically and socially possible.
Physical emigration is another form of exit, but the evidence requires caution. South Africa has experienced substantial outward migration of citizens and persistent concern about the loss of skilled professionals. Statistics South Africa’s Migration Profile documents emigration as a significant component of the country’s migration system and notes rising numbers of South Africans studying abroad. “White flight” representing a skill exodus is real, although official emigration measurement is incomplete. The theoretical point does not depend on a precise statistical measure of emigration. In any jurisdiction, mobile human and financial capital will tend to respond to deteriorating security, infrastructure, taxation or institutional predictability. Exit can discipline governments, but it can also weaken the tax base and reduce the stock of scarce skills. This creates another possible feedback loop: deteriorating institutions encourage the departure of those best able to leave, which can make institutional repair more difficult, and induce a further skill exodus.
The libertarian significance of the South African case extends beyond the familiar observation that governments can fail. The deeper lesson concerns institutional competition. Where consumers can exit, failing organisations lose resources. Where provision is monopolised and funded coercively, failure can persist because the organisation’s revenue is partly insulated from user satisfaction.
South Africa nonetheless demonstrates that exit reappears when technology and private coordination make it possible. Residential associations and business improvement districts supply local collective goods. These are examples of polycentric governance: overlapping providers rather than a single sovereign supplier (Ostrom 2010).
The important caveat is that spontaneous privatisation under conditions of state failure is not equivalent to an orderly libertarian reform. It can be wasteful, unequal and legally insecure. A more attractive libertarian programme would remove barriers to competitive provision deliberately, reduce duplication by lowering taxes as public responsibilities recede, establish secure property rights and contractual rules, and permit infrastructure markets to emerge before state failure forces emergency substitution.
One of the most unusual responses to South Africa’s institutional trajectory can be observed in Orania, the small Afrikaner settlement in the Northern Cape established in 1991. Orania is usually discussed as an experiment in Afrikaner nationalism or separatism. Its inhabitants explicitly seek greater Afrikaner self-determination, and the community’s longer-term political horizon is connected to the Volkstaat tradition: the idea that Afrikaners should concentrate territorially in order eventually to govern themselves.
These ideological origins cannot be ignored. Yet for the purposes of the present argument, Orania is interesting for another reason. It represents an unusually advanced experiment in institutional exit. The conventional affluent South African response to declining state capacity is functional substitution. If municipal services become unreliable, gated communities and neighbourhood associations assume some of their functions. Orania extends this logic from individual services towards the construction of an entire community. Instead of separately substituting private solutions for particular failures of the state, it attempts to assemble land, infrastructure, businesses, schools, community organisations and local governance within a territorially concentrated institutional ecosystem. Its importance therefore lies not only in what its inhabitants are trying to preserve, but in how they are attempting to preserve it.
Exit Rather Than Capture:
Albert Hirschman’s classic distinction between exit and voice provides a useful starting point. When individuals are dissatisfied with an institution, they can attempt to change it politically—voice—or withdraw from it and choose an alternative—exit. Markets institutionalise exit continuously. Consumers dissatisfied with one supplier can switch to another. Political systems normally rely much more heavily upon voice because citizens cannot readily change governments or jurisdictions.
South Africa increasingly displays hybrid forms of exit. The taxpayer remains formally inside the state but progressively exits from particular services. He ceases relying upon the police but remains subject to taxation. He disconnects partially from Eskom but remains connected to the national political system. He sends his children to private school while continuing to finance public education.
Orania radicalises this process by territorialising it. Its strategy is not principally to acquire control over the South African state and redirect its resources towards Afrikaner interests. Instead, its inhabitants seek to reduce their dependence upon that state by accumulating the institutional capacities necessary for self-government.
This distinction is particularly important in the context of the patronage argument developed earlier in this paper. One response to a political system organised increasingly around distributive competition is to construct a sufficiently powerful political coalition to capture a larger share of the distribution. Another is to withdraw as far as possible from distributive politics altogether. Orania aspires to the latter. Its underlying proposition is effectively: rather than compete for control of the state, build institutions that reduce the importance of controlling the state. This makes it interesting from a libertarian perspective even though its underlying nationalism is not itself libertarian.
Own Land, Own Labour, Own Institutions:
Orania summarises its philosophy through three interconnected principles: eie grond, eie arbeid, eie instellings—own land, own labour, own institutions. Each contains an institutional insight.
Own land provides the territorial basis of governance. A community dispersed throughout a much larger political jurisdiction cannot easily establish alternative institutions because its members remain embedded within the institutions and infrastructure of the surrounding society. Territorial concentration allows rules, services and social norms to operate together.
Own institutions means that political aspiration must be supported by institutional capacity. Schools, businesses, administrative structures, infrastructure, financial arrangements and community organisations must exist before meaningful autonomy can exist.
This reverses the conventional nationalist sequence. The conventional separatist movement demands political sovereignty first and assumes that institutions can subsequently be constructed. Orania’s strategy is closer to: institution-building → economic viability → demographic concentration → increasing practical autonomy → potentially greater political autonomy. Sovereignty, on this interpretation, is not primarily declared. It is accumulated.
The third principle, own labour, is perhaps the most revealing.
Historically, affluent white South African communities depended extensively upon lower-paid black labour for domestic work, construction, agriculture and municipal services. Orania regards such dependence as inconsistent with genuine self-determination. A community cannot plausibly claim to be autonomous while depending upon an external population to perform the work required for its everyday reproduction. Residents therefore undertake forms of manual and service labour that affluent white South Africans elsewhere have traditionally outsourced. Whatever one thinks about the ethnonationalist motivation, the institutional principle is significant: autonomy requires bearing the full cost of one’s own social order. This is the opposite of rent-seeking. Instead of attempting to externalise costs onto politically weaker groups or the general taxpayer, a genuinely self-governing community must internalise the costs of maintaining itself.
Orania as a Proprietary Community:
Orania also possesses features of what might be lead us to talk here about a proprietary community, in the sense of Spencer H. MacCallum’s ‘The Art of Community’. MacCallum used “proprietary community” (MacCallum 1970) for communities in which common land and facilities are privately owned and the proprietor supplies community services contractually, i.e. a community in which a substantial part of the territory, infrastructure, or collective services is owned or controlled through private property arrangements rather than administered in the ordinary way by a municipal government. The idea extends to the concept of a privately developed and administered town. Orania has some striking similarities. Its land was originally acquired privately in 1991; much of its development has been deliberately organized through private/community institutions; residents are subject to admission arrangements; it provides or organizes many local services; and the community has developed a considerable degree of economic and institutional autonomy. However, it is not a Free Private City (Gebel 20218) in Titus Gebel’s sense because Orania is still within the Republic of South Africa and subject to South African law.
However, Orania – via the extensive use of condominium-style residence management regulates access like a proprietary community. Residence is not simply determined by purchasing any available house and thereby acquiring an unconditional right to participate in the community. Prospective residents are subject to admission procedures and are expected to subscribe to the community’s Afrikaans language, Afrikaner cultural identity and self-determination project. This is obviously the most controversial aspect of Orania.
Critics argue that cultural selection functions in practice as racial exclusion and that Orania reproduces segregation within post-apartheid South Africa. Supporters respond that voluntary cultural association on privately controlled territory is fundamentally different from apartheid because Orania claims no authority over outsiders and does not seek to compel other ethnic groups to live according to Afrikaner rules. For the present argument, however, another institutional feature is important: entry into the community is selective while exit remains voluntary.
This resembles other forms of private association. Firms select employees. Clubs select members. Universities select students. Residential associations impose covenants. Religious communities establish membership requirements. Individuals who reject these conditions remain free to organise themselves differently elsewhere. The difficult question is how far this associational principle can legitimately extend once an organisation begins performing functions normally associated with territorial government. Orania therefore sits at an intellectually interesting boundary between private association and political jurisdiction. It is precisely this ambiguity that makes it useful as an experiment in alternative governance.
The High-Trust Hypothesis:
There is another possible explanation for Orania’s performance that deserves serious investigation. Its relative institutional effectiveness may have less to do with Afrikaner ethnicity as such than with the consequences of self-selection and high social trust.
Individuals who move to Orania are not a random sample of Afrikaners. They voluntarily enter a community requiring unusually strong commitment to a common project. They accept cultural expectations, perform their own labour, participate in local institutions and knowingly relocate to an isolated settlement whose principal attraction is precisely this institutional experiment. The selection effect is therefore enormous. Orania might consequently be producing a high-trust environment through several mutually reinforcing mechanisms: voluntary entry; shared norms; reputational accountability; small institutional scale; relatively easy identification of free-riding; local responsibility for collective goods; and the possibility of exit.
These conditions reduce some of the principal-agent problems characteristic of large bureaucratic states. An official administering a national department is remote from millions of taxpayers and service users. A local administrator in a small community encounters the people affected by his decisions repeatedly. Poor performance becomes visible. Reputation matters. Information travels quickly. This does not eliminate bad governance, factionalism or incompetence. Small communities can suffer all three. But it alters the feedback mechanism.
Local Knowledge and Competitive Governance:
This brings Orania surprisingly close to Hayekian arguments concerning local knowledge. Large political systems necessarily make decisions using aggregated information. Central authorities cannot possess detailed knowledge of the circumstances, preferences and opportunities dispersed among millions of individuals. Markets address this knowledge problem through decentralised decision-making and price signals. Local governance potentially captures some of the same advantage. Decisions are made closer to the individuals possessing relevant knowledge and bearing the consequences. Orania adds another mechanism: jurisdictional competition.
If living conditions deteriorate sufficiently, residents can leave. If the community becomes attractive, outsiders who satisfy its membership conditions seek to enter. Capital follows similar signals. This creates something analogous to a market test of governance.
The comparison should not be exaggerated. Moving town is vastly more costly than changing supermarkets. Governments possess coercive powers firms do not. And Orania remains embedded within South Africa’s larger legal and economic order. Nevertheless, the underlying principle resembles Charles Tiebout’s famous model of individuals “voting with their feet” among local jurisdictions.
Instead of all citizens attempting to impose one preferred institutional arrangement upon an entire country through national elections, different communities can potentially offer different packages of rules, services and obligations. Individuals then sort themselves among them. The result is not a single optimal institutional model but competition among institutional models.
From Monopoly Governance to Polycentric Order:
Elinor Ostrom’s work provides another useful theoretical framework. Ostrom challenged the assumption that collective goods must be supplied either by a central state or by a single privatised provider. Real societies frequently develop polycentric systems in which households, firms, associations, municipalities and other organisations overlap in supplying governance functions. Contemporary South Africa increasingly exhibits precisely such arrangements.
A gated estate employs security guards while remaining within the jurisdiction of the South African Police Service. A private school operates alongside a public education system. A business improvement district supplements municipal services. Orania can be interpreted as an attempt to bundle many of these arrangements territorially. It therefore represents not the complete disappearance of the state but the emergence of a nested governance system. South African sovereignty remains outside it. Inside that framework, however, a growing range of functions is organised locally. This distinction matters because institutional evolution rarely proceeds through clean replacement. New institutions emerge alongside old ones, gradually absorbing functions as they demonstrate greater competence. The process can be evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
A Competitive Alternative to Patronage
This brings Orania directly into the central argument of this paper.
Patronage and competitive governance represent opposite responses to institutional failure. Under patronage, individuals seek access to the political centre because the political centre controls valuable resources. Under competitive governance, individuals seek to reduce the number of resources controlled by the political centre by constructing alternatives. The first strategy increases the value of political connections. The second decreases it. The first produces incentives to capture institutions. The second produces incentives to build institutions. The first asks: Who controls the allocation? The second asks: Can we produce an alternative? This is why Orania is more theoretically interesting than its small population might suggest. It constitutes an experiment in changing the direction of entrepreneurial effort from rent-seeking towards institution-building.
The Ethnicity Problem
There remains, however, an unavoidable question. Is Orania successful because it is Afrikaner, or because it possesses institutional characteristics that could in principle be reproduced by communities with completely different ethnic compositions? This distinction is decisive. If its effectiveness depends fundamentally upon ethnic homogeneity, then Orania principally supports an ethnonationalist interpretation of social order: culturally homogeneous populations possess advantages in trust, solidarity and collective action that heterogeneous societies cannot easily reproduce.
But there is another possibility. Ethnic-cultural homogeneity may simply be Orania’s particular mechanism for achieving a more general set of institutional conditions: high trust, shared norms, voluntary self-selection, reputational accountability, local knowledge, strong property rights, internalisation of costs and meaningful exit. If these are the operative mechanisms, there is nothing inherently Afrikaner about them.
A Chinese entrepreneurial community, an Indian technology enclave, an international university town, a religious community, a privately developed city or a deliberately cosmopolitan charter city might theoretically produce similar institutional advantages through entirely different mechanisms of selection and cohesion. The hypothesis should therefore be tested rather than assumed. The intellectually interesting question is not: Does Afrikaner ethnicity produce superior governance? It is: Which institutional characteristics of Orania allow collective goods to be produced effectively, and which of those characteristics are transferable beyond the particular cultural community in which they emerged?
This distinction is particularly important in relation to the argument I developed in “Thesis of German Right Wing Populism – A Rationale for the Protection of High-performance National Cultures.” The relevant object of preservation is not ethnicity as such but the cultural and institutional patterns capable of sustaining advanced social cooperation and productive performance. From this perspective, Orania should be judged by performance rather than identity.
The Experimental Test
Orania therefore presents an empirical opportunity. If its institutional model is genuinely superior in relevant respects, this should become observable. Does its population grow voluntarily? Does capital flow into the community? Are businesses created? Do property values rise? Does infrastructure improve? Are services reliable? Is crime comparatively low? Are schools effective? Can the community finance the infrastructure required by a growing population? Does it generate sufficient productivity to support itself without hidden subsidies from the surrounding state? Can it attract skilled individuals rather than merely ideological adherents? And, perhaps most importantly, does institutional performance persist as the community grows?
The last question is crucial. Governance that works among several thousand highly self-selected people may cease working among tens or hundreds of thousands. Informal trust mechanisms become weaker as populations increase. Personal reputation becomes less effective. Administrative complexity grows. Orania’s real test is therefore not survival. It is scalability.
Exit as Discovery
The appropriate libertarian attitude towards Orania is therefore neither romanticisation nor dismissal. There is no need to decide in advance whether its social model ought to be universally adopted. Indeed, that would contradict the very principle that makes the experiment interesting. The point of institutional competition is that we do not know in advance which institutional arrangements will work best. Different communities should be allowed, within the constraints imposed by the rights of others, to experiment with different arrangements.
Successful institutions attract people and capital. Unsuccessful institutions lose them. Institutional diversity thereby becomes a discovery process analogous to competition within markets. This is perhaps Orania’s deepest significance. South Africa’s institutional regression has encouraged many citizens to retreat partially from the state. Orania transforms that defensive retreat into a constructive project of institution-building.
Its inhabitants are not merely purchasing generators because Eskom failed or guards because policing failed. They are attempting to answer a more radical question: How much of a functioning social order can a community reconstruct for itself? The answer remains uncertain. But the experiment itself demonstrates the possibility of responding to institutional deterioration not solely through political struggle for control of the existing state but through the creation of competing institutions.
Orania as Institutional Entrepreneurship
Seen in this light, Orania can be understood as an example of institutional entrepreneurship. The entrepreneur normally combines resources to create a new product or organisation within an existing institutional framework. The institutional entrepreneur attempts something more fundamental: to create or modify the framework within which social cooperation occurs. Land, capital, labour, rules, infrastructure and community are assembled into an alternative governance arrangement. The product being offered is, in effect, institutional quality.
Residents choose whether to buy into it with their lives and capital. Businesses choose whether to invest within it. Potential migrants decide whether its opportunities compensate for its restrictions. Existing residents decide whether to remain. This does not make Orania a pure market institution. It possesses collective rules and political structures and remains dependent upon the larger South African constitutional and economic order. But neither is it simply another municipality. It occupies the space between market, community and state. Precisely this institutional ambiguity makes it relevant to a society in which the conventional boundary between those spheres is already being renegotiated.
From Retreat to Reconstruction
South Africa’s private enclaves are sometimes interpreted principally as symptoms of social fragmentation: wealthy citizens withdraw behind walls while the public realm deteriorates around them. There is considerable truth in this criticism. Exit can weaken voice. Citizens who privately replace public services may have less incentive to improve the institutions serving everyone else. Private substitution can therefore coexist with—and perhaps even accelerate—the deterioration of the common public realm.
Orania forces the argument one stage further, however. At some point, exit ceases to be merely retreat. When private security, energy, education, infrastructure, businesses, community organisations and governance are recombined territorially, exit becomes reconstruction. That possibility deserves attention far beyond the particular Afrikaner politics of Orania.
The central problem confronting a deteriorating institutional order is ultimately not how citizens can escape its failures individually. It is how functioning institutions can emerge to replace those that no longer perform. South Africa may therefore be generating, unintentionally and from below, experiments in the reconstruction of institutional order.
Orania is currently the most radical of them. Its ultimate significance will depend not upon whether it preserves Afrikaner identity but upon whether it demonstrates something more general: that communities possessing sufficient social capital, local knowledge, responsibility for costs and freedom to experiment can construct institutions capable of outperforming centralised political provision. If so, Orania would represent not merely a refuge from South Africa’s institutional regression, but a small experiment in the competitive discovery of alternative forms of governance.
South Africa’s post-apartheid history should not be read as a simple morality tale. It is neither the story of an inevitably doomed African state nor the straightforward destruction of a successful economy at the moment majority rule arrived in 1994. The first decade of democratic government contradicts such an interpretation. The ANC initially preserved important elements of the inherited market order, pursued relatively orthodox macroeconomic policies and presided for a period over expanding investment and economic growth. Nor can South Africa’s subsequent deterioration plausibly be reduced to a single policy such as BEE, a single president such as Jacob Zuma, or a single phenomenon such as corruption.
The argument developed in this paper is more structural. South Africa illustrates the reversibility of institutional modernity. The institutions characteristic of an advanced market economy can remain formally intact while the mechanisms operating through them progressively change. Private property survives. Corporations continue trading. Banks function. Elections take place. Courts continue adjudicating disputes. Universities operate. Government departments, municipalities and state-owned enterprises retain their legal identities.
Yet beneath this architecture, or rather facade, the criteria determining access to opportunities can shift. Competition can give way incrementally to political allocation. Merit can become entangled with political loyalty. Rights can become increasingly dependent upon administrative discretion. Entrepreneurial effort can migrate from discovering what customers want towards discovering what political gatekeepers require. Contracts can become vehicles of patronage. Political connections can become economic assets. None of these changes requires the formal abolition of capitalism. A society can regress institutionally while retaining the outward appearance of a modern market economy.
The Historical Anomaly of the Open Order
This is the wider historical significance of the South African case. Modern people easily assume that impersonal economic competition under general rules represents the normal condition of society. Historically, the opposite is closer to the truth. For most of human history, access to economic opportunity was embedded in relationships of kinship, clan, inherited status, political allegiance and personal patronage. The individual advanced through networks of protection and obligation. Economic and political power were intertwined.
The emergence of an order in which strangers could transact under relatively general rules, acquire property independently of political favour and compete for opportunities without belonging to the same family, tribe, religion or patronage network was an extraordinary historical achievement. North, Wallis and Weingast’s distinction between limited-access and open-access orders captures an important part of this transformation. Open access to economic and organisational competition is not humanity’s default condition. It is a comparatively rare institutional accomplishment.
As I argued in my earlier essay, “Thesis of German Right Wing Populism – A Rationale for the Protection of High-performance National Cultures,” the prosperity take-off achieved first in Western Europe depended upon the cumulative co-evolution of an intricate network of cultural, technological, organisational and institutional preconditions. The South African case adds an important corollary: what was historically difficult to construct can also be comparatively easy to dissipate.
Institutions have to be reproduced. Capital can be Consumed. This principle applies to more than physical infrastructure. A power station is capital. But so is the engineering organisation capable of maintaining it. A railway is capital. But so are the routines, professional norms, technical knowledge and managerial structures necessary to operate it. A constitutional provision protecting property is an institution. But so is the expectation, embedded across millions of decisions, that property rights will in fact remain predictable.
Civilisation therefore possesses stocks of physical, human, social and institutional capital. All can be consumed or dissipated. This explains why institutional deterioration can remain invisible for surprisingly long periods. Infrastructure continues functioning after maintenance deteriorates. Organisations continue operating after experienced personnel disappear. Investment continues for some time after regulatory uncertainty increases. Inherited capital conceals the deterioration of the mechanisms required to reproduce it. Eventually, however, the accumulated stock becomes insufficient.
The failures then appear suddenly even though their causes have been accumulating for years. Eskom provided perhaps the clearest South African illustration of this process.
From Productive Entrepreneurship to Political Entrepreneurship
The distinction between productive and political entrepreneurship provides a connecting mechanism through much of the paper. All institutional systems generate incentives. Entrepreneurial intelligence does not disappear when institutions deteriorate. It changes direction.Where profits depend principally upon satisfying customers, entrepreneurs invest in products, technologies, organisational efficiencies and cost reduction.
Where substantial profits can be acquired through government contracts, licences, regulatory classifications and political relationships, entrepreneurs rationally invest in those instead. This is the deeper problem with corruption. The immediate theft is visible. The opportunity cost is not. A corrupt procurement contract costs the taxpayer whatever was stolen or overcharged. But a political-economic system in which thousands of capable people discover that relationships generate higher returns than innovation imposes a much larger dynamic cost. It changes what society selects for.
The interaction between BEE, preferential procurement, cadre deployment and patronage is significant in this respect. BEE should not simply be equated with corruption. Its historical motivation was the understandable objective of integrating a population deliberately excluded from economic opportunities under apartheid.
But politically administered preferences create opportunities for political entrepreneurship. The deeper issue is not who received the rents. It is the creation of rents worth competing for.
From Status to Contract—and Back?
The post-apartheid settlement consequently contains a profound paradox. Apartheid represented an extreme system of status. Race determined political rights, residence, employment and access to economic opportunities. The liberal alternative would have completed the transition from status to contract: universal individual rights, general rules and unrestricted competition irrespective of racial identity.
Post-apartheid South Africa instead pursued a hybrid arrangement. Apartheid’s exclusionary racial restrictions were abolished, but racial classification was retained as an instrument of remedial economic allocation. Race remained relevant to economic selection. More than three decades after apartheid, South African businesses still calculate the racial composition of ownership, management, employment, procurement and supplier relationships. A category that might have been expected progressively to lose political significance instead became embedded within a permanent regulatory architecture.
The controversy surrounding President Trump’s decision to create a refugee pathway for Afrikaners illustrates how far this tension has travelled internationally. The Trump administration’s strongest claims concerning white persecution and farm confiscation go beyond what the evidence establishes. There is no persuasive evidence of a state-sponsored “white genocide,” nor has South Africa implemented a general confiscation of white-owned farms. Yet the controversy could not have arisen in a vacuum. Race-conscious economic regulation remains extensive. Property rights have become newly contested through the Expropriation Act. Violent crime remains extreme. Farm attacks are real. Inflammatory racial rhetoric persists. The extraordinary spectacle of members of South Africa’s formerly dominant racial minority seeking refugee status in the United States therefore serves as a marker of the unresolved transition from racial status towards universal citizenship.
The Politics of Scarcity
The xenophobic violence directed against African migrants reveals another dimension of the same institutional problem. The attacks beginning dramatically in 2008 and recurring subsequently are not primarily an extension of South Africa’s historic white-black conflict. They are conflicts between insiders and outsiders. This matters theoretically. In a dynamic market order, the stranger is simultaneously competitor and collaborator. Competition is therefore embedded within a potentially expanding system of cooperation. Under conditions of stagnation and mass unemployment, the same stranger can instead be perceived as consuming part of a fixed stock. Politics then asks not how the stock can be expanded but who is entitled to it. This is the transition from positive-sum competition towards zero-sum distributive conflict. The immigrant becomes the ultimate outsider to the distributive coalition.
Two Responses to Institutional Failure
Here the South African experience presents a revealing contrast. One response to scarcity and institutional deterioration is exclusion. Foreigners are excluded from jobs, expelled from markets. Migrants are prevented from accessing services. Groups struggle politically to reserve existing resources for themselves.
But South Africa simultaneously displays a radically different response. Businesses increasingly construct infrastructure around failing public provision. And at the most radical edge of this process, Orania attempts to assemble many of these functions territorially into an increasingly comprehensive alternative institutional environment. Here the question is not: Who can we exclude from what still exists? It is: What can we build ourselves?
This distinction may be one of the most important conclusions to emerge from the South African case. Both responses originate partly in dissatisfaction with existing institutions. But they direct human energy in opposite directions. Scarcity politics searches for outsiders to exclude. Institutional entrepreneurship searches for alternatives to construct. The first directs effort towards redistribution. The second directs effort towards production. The first increases the political value of controlling existing institutions. The second reduces dependence upon them.
Orania Beyond Afrikaner Nationalism
This is what makes Orania more interesting than its tiny scale might initially suggest. Its ethnonationalist origins are undeniable. The community explicitly seeks Afrikaner self-determination. But the theoretically interesting question is whether its institutional performance depends upon Afrikaner ethnicity as such.
There is an alternative hypothesis. Perhaps Orania’s relative effectiveness derives from more general institutional characteristics: voluntary self-selection, high levels of social trust, strong common norms, local knowledge, reputational accountability, internalisation of costs, secure property arrangements, institutional experimentation, and meaningful possibilities of exit.
If these are the operative mechanisms, then the lesson is not ethnonationalist. It is institutional. The same principles might emerge in communities organised around entirely different identities or purposes: entrepreneurial cities, university towns, privately developed communities, religious settlements, charter cities or deliberately cosmopolitan enclaves. The relevant test is performance: Do people voluntarily move there? Does capital follow? Are businesses created? Can the institutional system scale? Can it maintain openness to innovation? Does it generate productivity without imposing costs upon outsiders?
Orania should therefore be treated as an experiment rather than a model to be accepted or rejected in advance. This is Hayek’s discovery procedure applied to governance.
Exit Is Not Enough
A libertarian analysis must nevertheless recognise a serious difficulty. Exit can itself accelerate institutional fragmentation. When affluent citizens abandon public schools, public hospitals, public policing and public electricity, they reduce their dependence upon state institutions—but potentially also their incentive to improve them. The most capable citizens can retreat into private provision while those without sufficient resources remain trapped within deteriorating public systems. Private exit can therefore coexist with public decline.
This is Hirschman’s dilemma. Exit may protect the individual while weakening voice. The South African question is consequently not merely whether private substitutes can emerge. They clearly can. The deeper question is whether institutional exit can eventually become institutional reconstruction. This occurs when alternative providers cease merely compensating defensively for isolated state failures and begin assembling durable systems of governance capable of generating their own institutional capital. At this point exit becomes entrepreneurial.
South Africa may consequently be evolving towards something more complicated than either state collapse or conventional privatisation. Ostrom’s concept of polycentric governance offers a useful framework. Governance need not be supplied by one monopolistic centre. Multiple institutions can overlap. The emerging order is neither purely public nor purely private. It is polycentric. South Africa’s institutional deterioration may therefore be producing, unintentionally, experiments in governance that would never have emerged under a competent monopoly provider.
This does not redeem the deterioration that generated them. The resources devoted to generators, walls, guards and duplicated infrastructure represent enormous opportunity costs. But institutional failure can nevertheless become a discovery process if it permits alternative arrangements to emerge.
The Choice: Capture, Exclusion or Construction
The South African experience ultimately reveals three responses to declining institutional performance. The first is capture. Acquire political power and use it to distribute opportunities among clients. The second is exclusion. When resources become scarce, redefine the circle of people entitled to compete for them. The third is construction. Create alternative institutions and expand the stock of opportunities.
These responses are not unique to South Africa. They are universal possibilities confronting societies under institutional stress. But South Africa displays all three with unusual clarity. State capture and tenderpreneurship exemplify the first. Xenophobic mobilisation exemplifies the second. Private electricity, private security, residential self-provision and, in its most comprehensive form, Orania exemplify the third.
The distinction between them is fundamentally evolutionary. Every institutional order selects behaviours. A patronage system selects for connections. A scarcity system selects for political mobilisation around insider status. An open competitive order selects for productive performance. The question facing South Africa is therefore ultimately not simply which party governs or which policies are adopted. It is: What forms of behaviour does the institutional system reward?
The Reversibility of Regression
There is finally a reason not to end this analysis pessimistically. If modernity is reversible, regression is reversible too. Institutions are human constructions. South Africa still possesses extraordinary assets: sophisticated businesses, financial markets, universities, professional expertise, substantial infrastructure, an independent civil society, competitive elections and important elements of constitutional legality. Its private economy repeatedly demonstrates considerable adaptive capacity.
Eskom’s recent partial improvements demonstrate that even severely degraded public institutions can recover when incentives, management and operational discipline improve. The task is therefore not to reconstruct civilisation from zero. It is to restore the selection mechanisms that allow existing capacities to flourish. It means restoring competence as the principal criterion of institutional selection. It means strengthening property rights and predictable general rules. It means reducing regulatory barriers to entrepreneurship and investment. And it means permitting institutional alternatives to compete wherever monopolistic public provision fails.
South Africa’s post-apartheid history warns against one of modern society’s most complacent assumptions: that once the institutions of modernity have been established, they become permanent. They do not. Physical capital depreciates unless maintained. Human capital disappears unless reproduced. Institutional knowledge vanishes unless transmitted. Professional norms weaken unless enforced. Competitive markets contract when political allocation expands. South Africa is certainly not the only example of this kind of regression. Venezuela is another stark case, among many others, including the experiences of economic decline in most of the former European colonies after independence, the then so called Third World. South Africa’s decline is more recent and stands out because South Africa was always considered to be part of the First World.
However, the process is not irreversible. As Javier Milei has demonstrated in Argentinia, the reversal of this politically induced process of decline and regression is possible when the political direction is turned around once more, changing incentives, and initiating a positive feedback loop towards economic growth sustained by markets, libertarian institutions and discourses.
South Africa shows how private citizens, firms and markets can self-organize and reconstruct alternatives from below, exemplifying a successful spontaneous privatization process. The very weakness and declining capacity of the state gives – inadvertently – room to this emergent private order.
The broader lesson is not unique to South Africa. Impersonal competition under the rule of law is a rare and precious achievement. Patron-client systems are older, easier to reproduce and capable of re-emerging inside formally modern institutions. The task of a liberal society is not only to create markets and legal rules once, but continuously to preserve the conditions under which impersonal selection defeats political favour. Advanced, modern civilization is not an inheritance that can simply be taken for granted and passively consumed. It is a complex, improbable, process with many intricate, necessary institutional and cultural ingredients that must all be continuously reproduced. Such an intricate order – involving markets, the rule of law and the active monitoring and steering via open discourses - is inherently fragile and vulnerable to political disruptions, leading to historical regression. South Africa offers a stark and recent example of this tragic possibility.
The deepest lesson of South Africa is therefore the same lesson with which this inquiry began. Civilisation is not an inheritance that can simply be possessed. It is an activity. Infrastructure must be maintained. Knowledge must be transmitted. Professional competence must be selected. Trust must be reproduced. Rules must remain credible. Capital must be replenished.
Productive cooperation among strangers must continuously allowed to outperform the older temptations of status, patronage and group conflict. The historically exceptional achievement of the modern open order was to replace a large part of the struggle for political favour with impersonal competition under general rules. South Africa demonstrates how easily that achievement can begin to unravel. But it also demonstrates something else. When established institutions deteriorate, individuals do not simply stop cooperating. They adapt. They exit. They experiment. They build.
The critical distinction is between adaptations that intensify the struggle over a shrinking stock and adaptations that create new institutional capacity. Operation Dudula and Orania, interpreted at this level of abstraction, represent almost opposite answers to the same underlying anxiety. One says: There is not enough. Keep the outsider out. The other says: The existing institutions no longer suffice. Build alternatives.
The future of South Africa—and perhaps the more general future of liberal civilisation—depends upon which of these logics prevails. The route out of institutional regression cannot ultimately be the ever finer political allocation of scarcity among competing groups. It must be the reconstruction of an open order in which individuals once again have stronger incentives to produce than to capture, to cooperate than to exclude, and to build new opportunities rather than fight over inherited ones. The most precious institutional achievement is therefore not prosperity itself. It is the open competitive process capable of continually recreating prosperity.
Dassah, M.O. (2018). ‘Theoretical analysis of state capture and its manifestation as a governance problem in South Africa.’ Journal for Transdisciplinary Research in Southern Africa 14(1): a473.
Gebel, Titus (2018). Free Private Cities: Making Governments Compete for You. Aquila Urbis.
Giliomee, Hermann (2003). The Afrikaners: Biography of a People. Cape Town: Tafelberg; Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
Hayek, F.A. (1945). ‘The Use of Knowledge in Society.’ American Economic Review 35(4): 519-530.
IMF (2025a). South Africa: 2024 Article IV Consultation. IMF Country Report No. 25/28.
IMF (2025b). South Africa: Selected Issues. IMF Country Report No. 25/29.
Krueger, A.O. (1974). ‘The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society.’ American Economic Review 64(3): 291-303.
MacCallum, Spencer H. (1970). The Art of Community. Menlo Park, CA: Institute for Humane Studies.
Mamdani, Mahmood (1996). Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mathebula, N.E. and Masiya, T. (2022). ‘Governance Issues and State Capture at Eskom and Transnet: A Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Theory for Policy Studies.’ African Journal of Governance and Development 11(1.1): 146-163.
Mlambo, V.H., Zubane, S.P. and Thusi, X. (2022). ‘Interrogating Governance Challenges and Cadre Deployment in South Africa.’ Cihan University-Erbil Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 6(1): 11-18.
National Treasury (2023). Budget Review 2023. Pretoria: Republic of South Africa.
North, D.C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
North, D.C., Wallis, J.J. and Weingast, B.R. (2009). Violence and Social Orders. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Olson, M. (1982). The Rise and Decline of Nations. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Oomen, Barbara (2005). Chiefs in South Africa: Law, Power & Culture in the Post-Apartheid Era. Oxford/James Currey; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ostrom, E. (2010). ‘Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems.’ American Economic Review 100(3): 641-672.
Schumacher, P. (2024). ‘Thesis of German Right Wing Populism - A Rationale for the Protection of High-performance National Cultures.’ Substack.
Seekings, J. and Nattrass, N. (2005). Class, Race, and Inequality in South Africa. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Southall, R. (2007). ‘Ten Propositions about Black Economic Empowerment in South Africa.’ Review of African Political Economy 34(111): 67-84.
Tangri, R. and Southall, R. (2008). ‘The Politics of Black Economic Empowerment in South Africa.’ Journal of Southern African Studies 34(3): 699-716.
Tullock, G. (1967). ‘The Welfare Costs of Tariffs, Monopolies, and Theft.’ Western Economic Journal 5(3): 224-232.
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Note: This paper was researched and written in collaboration with Claude Opus 5
No posts
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.