Cyril Ramaphosa's inauspicious debut provides opportunities for the DA
Three months ago the leader of the Democratic Alliance (DA), Mmusi Maimane, said it was "wonderful" that Cyril Ramaphosa had adopted the DA's economic policy. President Ramaphosa's contradictory policy pronouncements and his recent re-appointment of a number of his predecessor's dodgy ministers have presumably by now disabused Mr Maimane of his previous illusions.
The DA leader's recent statement calling for fundamental policy reform that emphasises "robust economic growth" above redistribution is itself fundamentally at odds with Mr Ramaphosa's radical economic transformation ideas. So is Mr Maimane's call for a "wholesale change" away from "race-based" empowerment policies. In addition, his call for a one-year pay freeze for all but the lowest-paid civil servants goes against the recent budget's provision for generous pay rises.
Moreover, while Mr Ramaphosa has dusted off the supposed panaceas of job summits and social compacts, Mr Maimane has started to put more flesh on the bones of the labour market reform he has previously spoken about. While the leader of the African National Congress (ANC) hails the forthcoming introduction of a national minimum wage, his DA counterpart wants young people to be exempted from restrictive labour legislation, including the national minimum wage.
Unfortunately, however, there is a catch. Mr Maimane says that the exemption should apply only to youngsters and to businesses with fewer than 250 employees. This limitation makes no sense. Instead of encouraging businesses to expand and generate more and more jobs, it will help to ensure that businesses keep their employment levels at 249.
This is what has happened in France. A study by Jean Tirole, chairman of the Toulouse School of Economics and winner of the 2014 Nobel Prize in economics, showed that when a French firm moved from 49 to 50 employees, it faced 34 additional legal obligations. Professor Tirole also showed that the number of firms with between 47 and 49 employees was much larger than the number with between 50 and 69 employees.