Comparing the effectiveness of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) in South Africa: An application of Keynes' Macroeconomic Theory

Marvellous Ngundu , Mulatu F Zerihun , Malibongwe C Nyathi
{"title":"Comparing the effectiveness of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) in South Africa: An application of Keynes' Macroeconomic Theory","authors":"Marvellous Ngundu ,&nbsp;Mulatu F Zerihun ,&nbsp;Malibongwe C Nyathi","doi":"10.1016/j.aglobe.2024.100081","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study applies Keynesian macroeconomic theory in the ARDL model to compare the growth effects of the US's AGOA and China's FOCAC multilateral trading systems in South Africa from the first quarter of 2001 to the fourth quarter of 2022. The study uses South Africa's net exports with the corresponding partner as a proxy for each multilateral trading system. This quantification stems from the fact that South Africa's trade with the US and China has significantly improved since the establishment of AGOA and FOCAC in 2000. Our findings show that none of the multilateral trading systems contribute significantly to South Africa's economic growth. Rather, they appear to be used as strategic initiatives to gain access to mineral resources and facilitate the movement of mining machinery and other inputs into South Africa. To some extent, they are used as market-seeking initiatives, particularly FOCAC. It is worth noting, however, that the mineral resource preferences of these systems vary: while China prioritizes mineral products, the US prioritizes precious metals. This suggests that China and the US scramble for natural resources in South Africa, and possibly Africa in general, is complementary rather than competitive.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100126,"journal":{"name":"Asia and the Global Economy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667111524000057/pdfft?md5=33db1e2554789ef82a0db81d0f82d3be&pid=1-s2.0-S2667111524000057-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia and the Global Economy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667111524000057","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study applies Keynesian macroeconomic theory in the ARDL model to compare the growth effects of the US's AGOA and China's FOCAC multilateral trading systems in South Africa from the first quarter of 2001 to the fourth quarter of 2022. The study uses South Africa's net exports with the corresponding partner as a proxy for each multilateral trading system. This quantification stems from the fact that South Africa's trade with the US and China has significantly improved since the establishment of AGOA and FOCAC in 2000. Our findings show that none of the multilateral trading systems contribute significantly to South Africa's economic growth. Rather, they appear to be used as strategic initiatives to gain access to mineral resources and facilitate the movement of mining machinery and other inputs into South Africa. To some extent, they are used as market-seeking initiatives, particularly FOCAC. It is worth noting, however, that the mineral resource preferences of these systems vary: while China prioritizes mineral products, the US prioritizes precious metals. This suggests that China and the US scramble for natural resources in South Africa, and possibly Africa in general, is complementary rather than competitive.

比较《非洲增长与机会法案》(AGOA)和中非合作论坛(FOCAC)在南非的成效:凯恩斯宏观经济理论的应用
本研究在 ARDL 模型中运用凯恩斯宏观经济理论,比较了 2001 年第一季度至 2022 年第四季度美国的 AGOA 和中国的中非合作论坛多边贸易体系对南非经济增长的影响。该研究使用南非与相应伙伴的净出口额作为每个多边贸易体系的代理变量。之所以这样量化,是因为自 2000 年《非洲增长和机会法》和中非合作论坛成立以来,南非与美国和中国的贸易有了显著改善。我们的研究结果表明,没有一个多边贸易体系能对南非的经济增长做出重大贡献。相反,它们似乎被用作获取矿产资源、促进采矿机械和其他投入进入南非的战略举措。在某种程度上,它们被用作寻求市场的举措,尤其是中非合作论坛。但值得注意的是,这些体系对矿产资源的偏好各不相同:中国优先考虑矿产品,而美国则优先考虑贵金属。这表明,中国和美国对南非(甚至整个非洲)自然资源的争夺是互补性的,而非竞争性的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信