The European Union-South Africa Trade, Development and Co-operation Agreement
(EU/SA TDCA), signed in October 1999, is viewed by some in South Africa as not only
one of the most important trade and development agreements entered into by the 'new'
South African goverrunent, but also a significant agreement for setting precedents for
other bi-lateral trade and development pacts between the EU and African, Caribbean and
Pacific group of states. This thesis considers two major issues related to the EU/SA
TDCA. First, it describes and evaluates the structures that supported the South African
side of the TDCA decision-making process. Second, it discusses the potential economic
impact of the agreement on South Africa and part of southern African.
Prior to the election of the 'new' South African government in 1994, the majority of
South Africa's population was excluded - both in terms of access to decision-making
structures and from economic prosperity. By exploring the TDCA, the thesis provides a
window through wl-dch to examine contemporary access to decision-making processes in
South Africa and the likelihood of the TDCA promoting economic prosperity for sections
of southern African society, particularly the 'traditionally excluded'. Interviews with key
actors who helped formulate the TDCA provide information that enabled the evaluation
of the TDCA decision-making process and highlighted potential economic 'winners' and
'losers'. Interviewing representatives of the South African wine and textile sectors
provided an opportunity to examine in more detail the likely impact of the agreement and
decision-making processes, associated to the TDCA, within South Africa.
The results indicate that an overriding message of this thesis is one of complexity. The
description of the structures that underpinned the EU/SA TDCA portrayed complex
relationships between decision-making 'actors'. In evaluating the inclusivity of the policy
formulation process, there was a lack of consensus over who had been included or
excluded. Likewise, the identification of potential economic 'winners' and 'losers' proved
to be somewhat problematic.Department of
Geographical Sciences, University of Plymouth