The environment of small scale business and the informal sector in Botswana: Constraints, problems and prospects

In a bid to fight unemployment and poverty, and to build a truly indigenous private sector, a number of countries in Sub-Saharan Africa have made the development of small scale enterprises and the informal sector a policy priority. Policy-makers see a strong need that the informal sector should play a seed-bed role in helping Botswana enter business, and in creating employment. In pursuit of these twin goals, the Botswana government has tried a number of widely advocated strategies of developing the informal sector such as provision of training and extension services. In addition, the government has also recently embarked upon the process of deregulation as more and more scholarly works, and donors, have suggested a linkage between excessive regulation, and failure of these enterprises. Too much regulation, particularly in the area of licensing requirements, are said to limit the formation of new businesses. Some consensus seems to have emerged that in many developing countries, the regulatory environment is not conducive to business growth. Using data from a randomly picked sample of 237 entrepreneurs from Botswana, this study argues that too much regulation is not really a problem in Botswana. Actually, for some of the enterprises such as those into manufacturing, the regulatory framework is quite favorable. The registration process for much of the informal sector is fairly simple, with no major costs involved. However, this is far from suggesting that there is a favorable environment for business to grow in Botswana. A number of issues arising from the land tenure system and its corresponding property right are identified as some of the most important barriers to business growth. First, the administration of land has resulted in a very expensive land market in which it is very hard for a small entrepreneur to acquire a plot for business development, not just because of the artificial scarcity of land (particularly in urban areas), but the excessively high prices of such land. In addition, the property rights under which many of these entrepreneurs hold their property limit possibilities that such properties could be mortgaged, which is important in having access to formal financial markets. This is also happening in an environment where other avenues of saving have been diminished by the negative interest rates in the banking sector. This study therefore argues that any future efforts to develop the small scale sector and the informal sector must address these constraints. The study acknowledges the fact that the Botswana government has shown awareness to these problems. However, they still remain peripheral in discussions of business sector development

An equality-sensitive approach to redressing the disproportionate socio-economic impact of Covid-19 on vulnerable groups in Botswana, Kenya and South Africa

The coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on groups that have historically been subjected to systemic and structural discrimination based on specific identity characteristics such as race, gender and disability status. This is compounded in those cases where a person faces discrimination based on an intersection of multiple identity characteristics. Absent positive redistributive measures to help alleviate the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on vulnerable groups, existing patterns of inequality and poverty will be exacerbated. In this chapter, Botswana, Kenya and South Africa are used as case studies to advance the argument that when designing and implementing laws and policies addressing the adverse socio-economic effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, the right to equality in each of these jurisdictions imposes a duty on the state to take an equality- sensitive approach. The equality-sensitive approach requires the state, when realising socio-economic rights, to target, prioritise and take positive redistributive measures in favour of vulnerable groups. Vulnerable groups are groups that are subject to systemic and structural socio-economic disadvantage because of historical, social, economic and political arrangements of power. Through a normative and doctrinal analysis of the relationship between the right to equality and socio-economic rights, the Chapter argues that, in all three jurisdictions, there is a positive duty to take an equality-sensitive approach. The chapter will show that while some Covid-19 pandemic relief in these jurisdictions has taken equality into account, this has been on an ad hoc basis and not at all in some cases, which is contrary to the states’ duty to take an equality-sensitive approach.<br/

An Equality-Sensitive Approach to Redressing the Disproportionate Socio-Economic Impact of Covid-19 on Vulnerable Groups in Botswana, Kenya and South Africa

The coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on groups that have historically been subjected to systemic and structural discrimination based on specific identity characteristics such as race, gender and disability status. This is compounded in those cases where a person faces discrimination based on an intersection of multiple identity characteristics. Absent positive redistributive measures to help alleviate the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on vulnerable groups, existing patterns of inequality and poverty will be exacerbated. In this chapter, Botswana, Kenya and South Africa are used as case studies to advance the argument that when designing and implementing laws and policies addressing the adverse socio-economic effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, the right to equality in each of these jurisdictions imposes a duty on the state to take an equality- sensitive approach. The equality-sensitive approach requires the state, when realising socio-economic rights, to target, prioritise and take positive redistributive measures in favour of vulnerable groups. Vulnerable groups are groups that are subject to systemic and structural socio-economic disadvantage because of historical, social, economic and political arrangements of power. Through a normative and doctrinal analysis of the relationship between the right to equality and socio-economic rights, the Chapter argues that, in all three jurisdictions, there is a positive duty to take an equality-sensitive approach. The chapter will show that while some Covid-19 pandemic relief in these jurisdictions has taken equality into account, this has been on an ad hoc basis and not at all in some cases, which is contrary to the states’ duty to take an equality-sensitive approach.<br/