If you read Wits University academic Chris Malikane’s published peer-reviewed work, you might find yourself agreeing with his conclusions as it cites evidence and argues for economic policy objectives that fit with settled economic science.
Yet the same man, who was appointed an adviser to Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba almost immediately after he took office, said this weekend SA should go through a Zimbabwean and Venezuelan phase, complete with nationalisation without compensation and an armed struggle if necessary.
Who is this Jekyll and Hyde? His latest peer-reviewed article, in African Development Review, a journal of the African Development Bank, presents a study of several Southern African countries to assess the link between economic growth, foreign direct investment and democracy. By examining statistics from those markets, Malikane and his co-author found that foreign direct investment "has a direct positive effect on economic growth" and that democratic institutions, including respect for property rights, rule of law and sound monetary policy, also have a direct positive effect on economic growth.
Yet this same man on Saturday said at a function hosted by Black First Land First that SA should plunge into crisis like Venezuela and Zimbabwe to achieve transformation with widespread nationalisation and expropriation of land without compensation. City Press reported him as saying "we need a two-thirds majority to change the Constitution" or go the route of taking up arms (there seems to be some dispute on whether he said arms will be taken up, or should be taken up).
Black First Land First grabbed headlines recently when its members arrived at the Gupta compound in Saxonwold to intimidate protesters after President Jacob Zuma fired Pravin Gordhan as finance minister. It is unapologetically a shill for the Guptas. In accepting their platform, Malikane has aligned himself with the Guptas and their project brazenly to extract wealth from the state.
How does one square Malikane, the social scientist who studies evidence and comes to conclusions supported by most economists around the world, with the radical who wants to plunge the country into economic chaos? In a Facebook conversation with Malikane, I mentioned I was reading his paper and he gave a curious response: "Don’t confuse my academic writing and what I believe to be true ... you know the business of publishing is so ideologically poisoned that what is published is not necessarily scientific ... we sometimes write in order to simply play in the publishing game ... not necessarily because we think what we publish is correct ... there is heavy ideological repression in academia ...".
So, his published work, with the evidence he cites, is really an act of intellectual dishonesty calculated to achieve academic advancement. When he cites evidence linking economic growth to foreign investment, rule of law and property rights, either he thinks the evidence is wrong, or the link between the evidence and his conclusion is unsound. Or perhaps, his purported beliefs are not a function of evidence and reasoning, but something else.
Many academics agree that published articles are a kind of academic game. Getting published in a top peer-reviewed journal is competitive. A paper must contain thoroughly researched argument supported by evidence, but in a way that convinces those who review it, using concepts they understand and that fits their ideology.
The push towards ideological conformity and bad reviewing is a weakness of the system, but it has strengths. Reviewers often point out poor reasoning, so that authors can improve them.
Journals have an incentive to choose good reviewers. They want to publish work with impact; work that genuinely changes, rather than simply conforms to, the way people think. Top academics, such as economists who win Nobel prizes, change the conversation.
So, when Malikane calls for SA to go through a Venezuela or Zimbabwe-style economic disaster, should we assume these are his true beliefs? Actually, it is the wrong question to ask. The right question is whether he has good evidence and reasoning for his claims. And, until he publishes them in a way that involves assessment by his peers, we must assume he does not.
The views he propounds are not about policy outcomes based on evidence. Instead, they pour ink in the well of economic reasoning, to confuse and obfuscate from policy arguments that have proper evidence. That seems to be his appointed function, and it is from a Gupta platform that he performs it.
Don’t be confused. Focus on peer-reviewed Malikane arguments. That Malikane makes it clear that amending the Constitution to remove property rights, the abandonment of the rule of law, an armed uprising, and chasing away foreign investment, will spell economic disaster. It will mean parents unable to find work to earn money to feed themselves and their children and a government unable to provide citizens with basic social services. Malikane’s own evidence makes it clear that is the future that awaits us.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.