Abstracts

23 the management of a country’s economic and social resources for development” (World Bank, 1994, p. vii). This definition is crafted to guide the sustainability of projects and programs pioneered by the World Bank, and it also can be applied to the broad realm of economic and social policy. The Institute on Governance, a nonprofit organization based in Canada, similarly defines governance as the interaction between government and social organizations in decision-making processes (Graham et al., 2003). The Institute on Governance furthers the definition of governance through five good governance principles: 1) legitimacy and voice, 2) direction, 3) performance, 4) accountability, and 5) fairness. The principle of legitimacy and voice is characterized by participation and holistic consensus that incorporates differing perspectives. Direction is characterized by a strategic vision capable of understanding past complexities and the long-term goals for development. Performance can be measured in terms of effective use of resources in the processes designed to serve all affected people. Good governance requires accountability and transparency in all stages of development. Finally, fairness calls for equal opportunities and a policy that operates within the rule of law. Of these principles, two in particular, direction and accountability, appear problematic. Analyzing BBBEE policy in the context of these principles reveals areas of weakness and potential for improvement. Clarity of Vision Among the five good governance principles, BEE inadequately communicates a clear vision for direction to the citizens of South Africa. Legitimate policies and plans necessitate a grounded consensus and ideology to guide the direction of policy. In the case of BEE, there is an overarching goal of reducing inequality and empowering black South Africans. This goal is not confined to the agenda of BEE policies, but rather it is a guiding principle for the entirety of postapartheid South Africa. Consequently, the idea of BEE has become an ambiguous concept with various perceptions and applications, with BBBEE acting as just one concrete piece of legislation on the matter. Donald Lindsay, in his doctoral research at the University of the Witwatersrand, speaks to the poor articulation and consequent lack of understanding of BEE policy as demonstrated in former President Jacob Zuma’s (2013) speech at the BBBEE Summit: “Terms such as BEE, B-BBEE, affirmative action, and transformation are used interchangeably while unrelated references are made to diverse economic policy frameworks” (Lindsay, 2015, Section 5.4). The ambiguity in definition and expectation as identified by Zuma makes it difficult to ascertain the success of BBBEE policy and other related policies. Current BBBEE Commissioner Ms. Zodwa Ntuli blamed lagging economic progress as the cause for increasing disenchantment among disadvantaged South Africans (B-BBEE Commission, 2020, p. 2). Impactful transformation requires clear direction and implementation in order to revitalize the commitment to the BBBEE agenda by companies and individuals. Accountability In terms of transparency, the most apparent malfeasance is in the practices of fronting and cronyism. The DTI defines fronting as a “a deliberate circumvention or attempted circumvention of the B-BBEE Act and the Codes” (DTI, n.d.). A common example is when black South Africans are appointed to positions strictly to fulfill BBBEE requirements but are given no participatory role in the enterprise’s business operations. In the most recently released Annual Performance Plan from the BBBEE Commission, then Minister of Trade and Industry Dr. Rob Davies, MP, stated that 80% of reported complaints relate to fronting, proving that it is a considerable threat to the ethical implementation of BEE (B-BBEE Commission, 2020, p. 1). BEE lacked clear policies and regulation during its inception and initial phases. As a result, it appeared to have promoted only a small elite group of politically connected black South Africans. By reaping the benefits of BEE, these few people amassed wealth and power, which contributed to the rise of corruption in political and economic spheres (Chikozho, 2016). BEE policy was further manipulated as cronies utilized the tender system to advance