DEBATE IMPROVING MANUFACTURING PERFORMANCE IN SOUTH AFRICA: A REJOINDER

the future of the South African economy, and its views were likely to have a significant influence on South African policy. For these reasons the Report warranted careful attention, and I was pleased that two of it's authors, David Kaplan and David Lewis, had responded to my assessment of the Report. Constructive debate on these issues is important. Regrettably, Kaplan and Lewis have not provided any new substantive arguments, directed at the issues raised in my paper, to deal with in this rejoinder. Rather, their remarks indicate that in several crucial respects they have missed the point of my argument and hence misinterpreted it. The discussion which follows is devoted to showing this, and to clarifying the issues raised by the ISP report. Only once this is done is it possible to debate further the issues central to the formulation of South African industrial policy. For ease of reference, the discussion below considers the issues raised by Kaplan and Lewis under their section headings. 'Disputing the Productivity Performance. Was it really that bad?' On this aspect of my paper, Kaplan and Lewis ' response consists mainly of references to the findings of studies not mentioned in my paper, in particular Moll (1990), the National Productivity Institute (1990), and the World Bank study by Belli et al (1992). I was in fact well aware of these studies, which are also discussed in Wright (1993:2-3, 11), a study of which I made considerable use in my paper. I did not refer to these findings, however, because they do not seem to me to throw light on the issues raised by the ISP, which I was addressing