Economist.com Article - "INTO AFRICA"

MaD

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2003
Messages
4,929
INTO AFRICA
Aug 25th 2005

Can South Africa ride the outsourcing and offshoring wave?

LAST month, Amazon, an online retailer, announced that it had opened a
software development centre in Cape Town. Chris Pinkham, a South
African who is returning home from Seattle to head the operation, says
that Amazon chose South Africa because of its pool of high-calibre IT
workers and good infrastructure. The new outfit will create programmes
for users around the world. Will other foreign firms also move such
operations--a strategy known as "offshoring"--to South Africa?

According to a recent study by McKinsey, a consultancy, South Africa is
well placed to benefit from the trend of firms shifting business
processes, such as customer care and payroll administration, to cheaper
places. This, says McKinsey, could create 100,000 jobs in South Africa
as well as attracting a modest but useful $90m-175m in foreign
investment by 2008.

Global demand for offshoring from American and British firms alone is
forecast to rise from $10 billion now to maybe $60 billion by 2008, 40%
of which is likely to be in banking and insurance. That is more than
countries such as India, China and the Philippines--which meet much of
the demand today--are likely to be able to handle. So newcomers such as
South Africa are after a piece of the offshoring pie.

As well as speaking English and being in a time zone close to
Britain's, South Africa offers sophisticated insurance and banking
sectors; a (modest) pool of qualified people; well-developed telecom
and IT infrastructure; and good business services. British and American
firms could cut the cost of some services by 30-40% by providing them
from South Africa. That is why IBM has decided to open a global
call-centre for international corporate clients in Johannesburg.
Merchants, a subsidiary of Dimension Data, a South African IT firm,
runs a call-centre for a big international media and communications
company.

Yet much needs to be done if South Africa is to win a lot more business
from abroad. There is no lack of competitors, from India to Malaysia
and Singapore. South Africa has yet to market itself well as an
offshoring centre. Other countries offer bigger investment incentives
and make setting up shop far easier. The body that represents
call-centres, the South African Contact Centre Community (SACCOM),
lacks the resources to drive the development of the sector--in sharp
contrast to, say, India's highly effective NASSCOM.

South Africa is also far pricier than the likes of India and the
Philippines. Labour regulations are too rigid, raising the cost of
doing business. The staggering price of telecoms is an even bigger
problem. According to Genesis Analytics, a consultancy, a firm in South
Africa will pay over nine times more than one in Singapore for ADSL
broadband internet service, almost twice as much as in Malaysia for a
domestic leased line, and 11 times more than in India for a local call.
An international phone call costs 70% more from South Africa than
India; leasing an international line to America costs ten times more.

Telkom, South Africa's biggest telecoms company, was privatised eight
years ago with a monopoly over fixed lines. International calls have
become cheaper, but the cost of a three-minute local call ballooned by
an average of over 25% every year in 1997-2003. That raised the cost of
all services--from mobile calls to internet access--via lines leased
from Telkom.

New laws have recently introduced some competition. A second fixed-line
operator is expected to start soon. Telkom has also been under pressure
from the government--which admits that pricey telecoms are hindering
investment and growth--to cut its hefty tariffs. Last month, the
independent regulator imposed a cap on Telkom price rises. But Telkom
retains its monopoly on undersea cables transporting data and voice to
the outside world.

More and faster competition is badly needed to cut the cost of
telecoms
--which would give call-centres a chance to flourish. The
government now considers the offshoring sector a priority. A
public-private partnership to drive the development of offshoring is
being set up. South Africa must get its act together, or foreigners
will send their business to other shores.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Foreigners must be wondering what Government are thinking? It's as if they are building a barrier to dissuade any form of investment. The few billion they make from Telkom can be dwarfed by the benefit the economy can derive from an influx in investment and outsourcing, not to mention help improve the unemployment rate.

Sigh.
 

ebis

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
360
There's really no logic in why the government is SO slow in liberalising this market, even oversea companies are lobbying the government to hurry up!!! These are the very same companies that want to be based here and hence create more jobs for the SA market. I thought the government was serious about lowering the unemployment rate in SA??? If so, then why the hell are they SO casual about lowering telecoms costs in SA???!!!

I really don't think it has much to do with the fact that the government gets a lot of revenue from Telkom's insane high tariffs. For me, it has a lot to do with their incompetency in knowing what to do in lowering telecoms costs in SA. More specifically, that Poison Ivy is the one to blame here. Other ministries of the government (eg: the ministries in charge of trade and labour, etc...) have stated that telecoms costs needs to be brought down quickly to attract a LOT of investors in this country.

For some reason, this message seems to fall on deaf ears by the time it gets to the DoC. Either that or Poison Ivy is really confused on how to do the job she was elected to do. Which then brings up the question: why the hell has she not being fired already???!!!

Let's hope the recent remarks (such as the LLU) by the DoC will be implemented rapidly. After all, the whole of SA (and not just Telkom) will truly benefit from this.
 
Last edited:

Sneeky

Honorary Master
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
12,129
Its money mozez, not the excuse of government money, but PERSONAL interests.
There are way to many influential people in strategic decision making positions that will end up loosing truckloads of cash in their personal capacity as shareholders. The faster 'they' liberilise the communications market, the faster 'they' (individualy) lose cash and their net wealth erodes away. Total conflict of interest.
This has resulted in the status quo being a 'bugger the public and enrich a few attitude', and a very unhealthy situation.
 
Last edited:

ebis

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2005
Messages
360
Sneeky said:
Its money mozez, not the excuse of government money, but PERSONAL interests.
That I could believe. What I've been asking myself is whether the government itself would really hold the rest of the economy back just to ensure that the high returns it gets from Telkom continue. That for me just doesn't make much sense. Sure, the government needs as much money as it can get to "maintain" the whole of SA, but to get it from Telkom this way just doesn't make much sense.

/me senses a LOT of corruption when it comes to the telecoms industry in this country, as well as incompetency in the people making the "critical decisions" for this industry.
 
Last edited:
Top