10/2026: Who Owns South Africa? Testing the claim that 80% of the economy remains in white hands

Read the full Occasional Paper by downloading the PDF below.

PUBLICATION INFORMATION

Title: Who owns South Africa? Testing the claim that 80% of the economy remains in white hands

Author(s): Daryl Swanepoel

Publication type: Occasional Paper

Publication date: October 2026

PUBLISHED BY

Inclusive Society Institute | NPO Registration: 235-515

5 High Cape House, 21 Ben Avenue, Vredehoek, Cape Town, 8001, South Africa

PO Box 12609, Mill Street, Cape Town, 8010, South Africa

Tel: +27 (0)21 201 1589

Email: admin@inclusivesociety.org.za

Website: www.inclusivesociety.org.za

COPYRIGHT

© 2026 Inclusive Society Institute.

Unless otherwise expressly indicated, copyright in this publication is owned exclusively by the Inclusive Society Institute. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means without the Institute’s prior written permission, except as permitted by applicable law.

Brief extracts may be quoted for criticism, review, research or educational purposes, provided that the authors, title and publisher are appropriately acknowledged. Permission requests should be directed to info@inclusivesociety.org.za.

SUGGESTED CITATION

Swanepoel, D. 2026. Who owns South Africa? Testing the claim that 80% of the economy remains in white hands. Cape Town: Inclusive Society Institute.

DISCLAIMER

This publication has been prepared for research, discussion and public-information purposes. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Inclusive Society Institute, its Board, staff, funders, partners or associated organisations.

While reasonable care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of the information at the time of publication, the Institute and the authors make no warranty regarding its completeness, accuracy or continued relevance. This publication does not constitute professional advice. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the Institute and the authors accept no liability for any loss or damage arising from reliance on its contents.

References to third-party organisations, products, services or websites do not constitute endorsement. The Institute is not responsible for the content, availability or accuracy of external websites.

Executive summary

A powerful proposition continues to shape South Africa’s transformation debate: that white South Africans still own around 80% of the economy. The precise figure varies, some contemporary political claims put white ownership or control even higher, but the underlying assertion is consistent: that the overwhelming bulk of South Africa’s economy remains in white hands. But there appears to be no comprehensive empirical dataset capable of establishing whether this is in fact the case.

This does not mean that racial economic inequality has disappeared. The evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that wealth remains highly concentrated and that the average white South African household remains substantially wealthier than the average black African household. But average wealth, aggregate racial ownership and ownership of productive economic assets are different measures. They should not be conflated.

Available evidence provides good reason to question the 80% proposition. The JSE’s underlying study reported a decade ago already that “black South Africans hold at least 23% of the Top 100 companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE)”, comprising “10% held directly” and “13% through mandated investment” (JSE, 2015). The published ownership breakdown estimated white South African investment at 22%, foreign investment at 39% and a further 16% as not yet analysed (JSE, 2015).

The importance of beneficial, rather than merely registered ownership is illustrated by the Public Investment Corporation (PIC). Its report states: “During the year under review, the PIC grew assets under management (AuM) to R3.049 trillion by 31 March 2025 from R2.691 trillion the previous financial year.” It adds that the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF), its “single largest client (88% of AuM), grew to R2.677 trillion” (PIC, 2025:68). The Government Pensions Administration Agency (GPAA) reports that “the racial demographic of contributing members consist of 74% Africans, 13% Whites, 8% Coloureds, 3% Asians and a <2% population classified as ‘unknown’” (GPAA, 2018:23).

Household wealth statistics raise further questions. The Momentum-Unisa report records the following population-group shares in its table: African Black households represented 82.1% of households and 57.3% of household wealth; white households represented 8.6% of households and 32.2% of household wealth; Coloured households represented 6.9% of households and 6.6% of wealth; and Indian/Asian households represented 2.4% of households and 3.9% of wealth (Momentum-Unisa, 2024:6). The report’s exact conclusion is that “The African Black population group possess almost 60% of the value of total household wealth” but “also comprise more than 80% of all households” (Momentum-Unisa, 2024:9). White households therefore remained substantially wealthier on average despite African Black households collectively possessing the larger aggregate share.

These findings do not establish the racial distribution of ownership of the South African economy. Household wealth is not synonymous with ownership of productive assets, and survey-based wealth estimates have important methodological limitations. They do, however, demonstrate why the 80% claim should not be treated as an established empirical fact.

More importantly, South Africa cannot currently provide a credible alternative figure.

After more than three decades of economic transformation policy, this represents a significant weakness in the country’s statistical and policy architecture. If transformation seeks to alter the racial distribution of economic ownership, government should be capable of measuring the outcome.

This paper therefore recommends that the B-BBEE Commission lead a funded feasibility study into a National Economic Ownership and Wealth Index, working with Statistics South Africa, the South African Reserve Bank, SARS, the FSCA, CIPC and other relevant institutions. The study should establish which assets and ultimate beneficiaries can be measured credibly; what disclosure requirements, legal safeguards and data-sharing arrangements would be needed; how often results could be produced; and what compliance and administrative costs would arise. A decision to establish the Index should follow from those findings.

If transformation has progressed substantially, South Africans should know it. If it has not, policymakers should know that too. Either conclusion is preferable to continuing to conduct one of the country’s most consequential policy debates through estimates, proxies and assertion.

Keywords: South Africa; Economic ownership; Racial wealth inequality; Economic transformation; Beneficial ownership; Household wealth; Wealth concentration; B-BBEE; Evidence-based policymaking; National Economic Ownership; Wealth Index

1. Introduction

A powerful proposition continues to shape South Africa’s transformation debate: that white South Africans still own around 80% of the economy. The precise figure varies, but the underlying assertion is consistent, that more than three decades into democracy, the overwhelming bulk of South Africa’s economy remains in white hands.

This is not merely an historical proposition. It remains firmly embedded in contemporary political discourse. In May 2026, ATM leader Vuyolwethu Zungula told the National Assembly that the “country’s economy is still characterized by oligopolies, which are a few white companies owned by a few white people dominating over 90% of the market share in all industries” (Parliament of South Africa, 2026).

The proposition also continues to inform the government’s defence of economic redress. In December 2025, Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Ronald Lamola invoked Nelson Mandela’s description of “the economic power relations represented by the reality of the excessive concentration of power in a few white hands”, together with Mandela’s warning that South Africa could not overcome its economic crisis while perpetuating “this power structure” (Lamola, 2025). By invoking these words in defence of current policy, Lamola reinforced the government narrative that economic power remains excessively concentrated in white hands, although neither he nor the passage cited a specific percentage.

Perhaps the clearest official expression of this narrative came from Tshediso Matona, the B-BBEE Commissioner, the official responsible for monitoring the implementation of the country’s empowerment framework. Addressing a B-BBEE conference in October 2023, Matona stated that “70% of the economy is owned and controlled by 7.9% percent of the population who are White” (Kagiso Capital, 2023:19). The significance of the statement lies not merely in the percentage cited, but in its source: it was advanced by the head of the statutory commission charged with monitoring economic transformation. But Matona also acknowledged the underlying measurement problem, stating that “we don’t read from the same evidentiary base” and lack “a shared view of progress or lack thereof” (Kagiso Capital, 2023:5). His remarks therefore capture the central problem examined in this paper: a precise racial-ownership figure is asserted authoritatively even while the official responsible for monitoring transformation acknowledges that the available evidence is incomplete.

There is no question that South Africa remains profoundly unequal. Chatterjee, Czajka and Gethin describe the country as being “characterized by unparalleled levels of wealth concentration” (Chatterjee, Czajka and Gethin, 2022). Racial disparities in average wealth remain substantial, and white South Africans continue to be disproportionately represented among wealthier households. But these facts do not, in themselves, establish that white South Africans collectively own 80%, or indeed the overwhelming majority, of the South African economy.

That is the proposition this paper seeks to test. Not whether racial inequality remains severe; it plainly does. Not whether the average white household remains substantially wealthier than the average black African household; the evidence demonstrates that it does. The narrower and more fundamental question is whether white South Africans, collectively, still own the overwhelming majority of South Africa’s economic assets.

Surprisingly, the available evidence cannot answer that question with confidence.

Indeed, this paper finds no comprehensive empirical dataset capable of establishing the racial distribution of ultimate beneficial ownership across the South African economy.

Available evidence provides sufficient reason to question whether aggregate white ownership could still be as high as 80%. But it does not permit a credible alternative economy-wide percentage to be calculated. That is arguably the more important finding.

After more than three decades of pursuing economic transformation, South Africa still cannot reliably answer one of the most fundamental questions against which the success of that policy should be assessed: Who ultimately owns South Africa’s economic assets?

2. What does it mean to “own the economy”?

There is no single asset called “the economy”.

South African economic wealth comprises listed and unlisted businesses, residential and commercial property, agricultural land, pension and provident fund assets, retirement annuities, collective investments, deposits, bonds and other financial and non-financial assets.

There is also substantial foreign ownership of South African assets and significant ownership by the state.

This immediately exposes a weakness in claims that a particular racial group owns a specified percentage of “the economy”. Such claims frequently move between land ownership, JSE ownership, corporate ownership and household wealth as though these were interchangeable concepts. They are not.

A further distinction is equally important: registered ownership is not necessarily beneficial ownership.

The name appearing on a shareholder register may belong to an investment institution, pension fund, nominee company, custodian or asset manager. That identifies the legal or institutional holder. It does not necessarily identify the people who ultimately possess the economic interest.

This distinction is particularly important in South Africa, because institutional investment represents such a substantial component of financial ownership.

3. The JSE illustrates the problem

The Johannesburg Stock Exchange has frequently been used as a proxy for measuring racial ownership. But available JSE research itself demonstrates why simplistic conclusions should be avoided.

Research cited in the public debate reported the following ownership distribution for the Top 100 JSE-listed companies in 2013. The JSE’s published finding was that “black South Africans hold at least 23% of the Top 100 companies listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE)” (JSE, 2015):

The JSE used “black” in the context of Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment. The research was undertaken for the JSE by the BEE advisory group Alternative Prosperity and, in its methodological note, the JSE stated that it was “Applying dti Generic Codes of practice (2007) method of calculation to latest research”, adding that “the dti describes its method of calculating black economic interest” (JSE, 2015). “Black” should therefore be understood in the B-BBEE sense, encompassing African, Coloured and Indian South Africans, rather than African South Africans alone.

The same research explained that the black ownership estimate included “10% held directly (largely through BEE schemes) and 13% through mandated investment, mostly through individuals contributing to pension funds, unit trusts and life policies” (JSE, 2015). Separate research conducted by Alternative Prosperity for the JSE estimated that direct investments accounted for approximately 24% of total South African investment in the Top 100 JSE-listed companies. Of this, “less than a third” was held by individuals with investment portfolios, equivalent to approximately 7% of total equity capital, comprising about 6% held by white individuals and less than 1% by black individuals (JSE, 2015).

The 2013 figures should not be presented as a current racial ownership measure. They are more than a decade old, 16% of holdings remained unanalysed, and the methodology involved estimates of indirect ownership. Subsequent transactions and changes in investment patterns may have altered the distribution, but without an updated comparable measure, neither the direction nor the extent of change can be established with confidence. The historical figures nevertheless demonstrate two important points.

First, the available historical evidence does not support treating 80% white ownership of the JSE as an established fact. Second, determining who ultimately owns listed shares requires looking through layers of institutional ownership. That remains a problem today.

In 2026, when the Minister of Finance was asked for a racial breakdown of JSE ownership, the response stated: “Data on the racial composition of ownership of shares listed on the JSE is not readily available.” It explained that investments are “often held through multiple layers of intermediaries, including custodians, pension funds, unit trusts, and nominee accounts” and that it is consequently difficult to determine the race of the underlying beneficial investors accurately (Minister of Finance, 2026).

More than a decade after the earlier JSE research, therefore, the fundamental measurement problem remains.

4. The PIC and GEPF demonstrate why beneficial

ownership matters

The Public Investment Corporation provides a particularly clear illustration of the distinction between asset management and underlying economic ownership.

At 31 March 2025, the PIC managed R3.049 trillion in assets. The report states that the PIC “grew assets under management (AuM) to R3.049 trillion by 31 March 2025” and that the GEPF, its “single largest client (88% of AuM), grew to R2.677 trillion” (PIC, 2025:68).

The PIC therefore does not beneficially own most of the wealth it manages. It invests assets on behalf of clients. The demographic composition of the GEPF is consequently relevant.

Government Pensions Administration Agency data for March 2017 stated that “the racial demographic of contributing members consist of 74% Africans, 13% Whites, 8% Coloureds, 3% Asians and a <2% population classified as ‘unknown’” (GPAA, 2018:23):

On this measure, more than 85% of contributing members whose population group was identified were African, Coloured or Asian.

This does not mean that 85% of the Rand value of GEPF assets can automatically be classified as black-owned. Pension entitlements vary according to remuneration, years of service and other factors. Member numbers and asset values are not interchangeable. But the data make the underlying methodological point clear.

A large PIC shareholding in a listed company cannot simply be treated as belonging to the asset manager or the state. Behind it sits a pension fund whose assets ultimately exist to meet obligations to its members and beneficiaries.

The same conceptual problem applies to private pension and provident funds, retirement annuities, collective investment schemes and investment-linked savings products.

A credible measure of economic ownership must therefore distinguish between the institution administering an asset and the people possessing the underlying economic claim.

5. Aggregate ownership is not average wealth

One of the most important distinctions in this debate is between aggregate racial ownership and average or median wealth by race. They answer different questions.

South Africa unquestionably exhibits extraordinary wealth inequality.

Chatterjee, Czajka and Gethin, using “microdata covering the universe of income tax returns, household surveys, and macroeconomic balance sheet statistics”, estimated the distribution of personal wealth in South Africa (Chatterjee, Czajka and Gethin, 2022). Their table records a wealth share of 85.6% for the top 10% and 54.7% for the top 1% in 2017 (Chatterjee, Czajka and Gethin, 2022).

The racial dimension of inequality is also well established in the wider literature.

But a large difference between the average wealth of black and white households does not tell us what percentage of aggregate South African wealth each population group collectively owns. The distinction matters, because of South Africa’s demographic composition.

Consider a simplified hypothetical economy containing R100 of household wealth. Assume black citizens collectively own R65 and white citizens R35. If the R65 is distributed among 80 black citizens while the R35 is distributed among eight white citizens, average black wealth would be approximately R0.81 per person and average white wealth approximately R4.38. Black citizens would collectively own almost two-thirds of the wealth while the average white citizen would still be more than five times wealthier.

The available household evidence illustrates the same distinction. Momentum-Unisa estimated that African Black households held 57.3% of total household wealth in 2023, compared with 32.2% held by white households. Because African Black households accounted for 82.1% of households and white households for 8.6%, estimated average wealth per white household was approximately 5.4 times average wealth per African Black household (Momentum-Unisa, 2024:6).

There is no contradiction. The first statistic measures aggregate ownership. The second measures average inequality. A third measure, the population share of each group, indicates whether aggregate ownership is proportionate to population. These three concepts should not be conflated.

It is therefore entirely possible for black South Africans collectively to own the majority of a particular category of South African assets while the average white household remains substantially wealthier.

If that were the case, it would indicate significant transformation of aggregate ownership while simultaneously demonstrating that profound racial inequality remained.

6. What the household wealth evidence tells us

The South African Reserve Bank states: “The net worth of households increased significantly from R7.3 trillion at the end of December 2010 to R18.3 trillion at the end of December 2023.” It adds that non-financial assets contributed an average 34.4% of household net worth, net financial wealth contributed 65.6%, and that “Growth in the market value of pension entitlements and listed shareholdings was the major source of households’ wealth accumulation over this period” (Mokoena & Setshedi, 2024:110).

This reinforces the importance of institutional ownership.

Much household economic ownership does not appear as shares registered directly in individuals’ names. It exists through pensions, retirement investments and other financial structures.

The Momentum-Unisa Household Wealth Index provides an additional perspective, because its 2023 household survey explicitly estimated the distribution of wealth, assets and liabilities by population group. The report states that its “distributional analysis indicated in table 2 is based on household and not individual level” (Momentum-Unisa, 2024:6). Its results were:

The result illustrates precisely why aggregate ownership and average prosperity must be distinguished. African Black households collectively accounted for 57.3% of estimated household wealth, compared with 32.2% for white households. But African Black households constituted 82.1% of households, whereas white households represented only 8.6%.

White households therefore remained vastly wealthier on average even though African Black households collectively accounted for the larger share of aggregate household wealth.

Momentum-Unisa itself notes this disparity: “The African Black population group possess almost 60% of the value of total household wealth, two-thirds of the value of household assets and owes almost 60% of outstanding debt.” It immediately adds: “However, they also comprise more than 80% of all households, suggesting an unequal accumulation of wealth compared to other population groups” (Momentum-Unisa, 2024:9).

The report also identifies differences in asset composition: “The African Black household group in general hold more assets via ownership of residential property, other tangible assets and deposits/cash compared to the other population groups.” It adds that “the other three population groups accumulate more of their assets via saving and investments” (Momentum-Unisa, 2024:9).

These findings must be interpreted cautiously.

Household wealth is not synonymous with ownership of the productive economy. Household surveys also face well-known difficulties in capturing very wealthy households and complex assets such as private companies, trusts and offshore investments.

Chatterjee, Czajka and Gethin explain that “there exists no unified administrative database in South Africa measuring wealth at the micro level for the full population” and that the wealth distribution therefore has to be measured “by combining several complementary data sources” (Chatterjee, Czajka and Gethin, 2022).

The Momentum-Unisa estimates therefore cannot simply be used to proclaim that black South Africans “own 57.3% of the economy”. But they are highly relevant to another proposition.

They provide substantial reason to question whether a blanket assertion that white South Africans still own 80% of South African wealth or the economy can responsibly be treated as established empirical fact.

7. What we know and what we do not

The evidence allows several conclusions to be drawn with reasonable confidence.

• We know that South African wealth remains extraordinarily concentrated.

• We know that racial disparities in average wealth remain substantial.

• We know that direct individual shareholding represents only a relatively small component of JSE ownership.

• We know that pension funds, collective investments and other institutional structures represent substantial economic interests ultimately held for the benefit of individuals.

• We know that the largest institutional investor in the country, the PIC, manages most of its assets on behalf of the GEPF, whose contributing membership is overwhelmingly black.

• We have household survey evidence estimating African Black households as collectively possessing a larger share of aggregate household wealth than white households, notwithstanding white households remaining substantially wealthier on average.

• And we know that foreign ownership constitutes a substantial part of South African listed equity ownership and must be separated from domestic racial ownership.

What we do not know is the current racial distribution of ultimate beneficial ownership across the South African economy as a whole.

That distinction is the central finding of this paper.

8. Government may have achieved more than it knows

There is an important possibility arising from this statistical failure. Government may have been considerably more successful in transforming patterns of economic ownership than it gives itself credit for.

Over more than three decades, millions of black South Africans have entered formal employment, accumulated pension rights, acquired homes, established businesses and accumulated investments through retirement funds, collective investment schemes and other financial products.

If these forms of beneficial ownership are inadequately reflected in conventional transformation measures, aggregate racial ownership may have changed considerably more than the dominant public narrative suggests.

The available evidence does not allow that conclusion to be asserted. But neither does it allow it to be dismissed.

Perhaps government has achieved more than it knows. If so, its failure to measure ultimate beneficial ownership means that it is unable to demonstrate one of the potentially most important achievements of the transformation project.

9. But perhaps transformation has not progressed

sufficiently

The opposite possibility must be treated with equal seriousness.

Transformation may have progressed substantially less than intended. Ownership of important productive assets may remain heavily concentrated. Black South Africans may have accumulated substantial pension and household assets while remaining underrepresented in direct entrepreneurial ownership or particular classes of productive capital. If that is the reality, government needs to know that too.

Reliable evidence would identify precisely where transformation has stalled, which asset classes remain disproportionately concentrated and where existing policy instruments have failed. It would allow intervention to become more targeted and evidence-based.

At present, neither proposition can be adequately demonstrated.

If transformation has worked, we should be able to prove it. If it has failed, we should be able to prove that too. Instead, one of the most consequential debates in South Africa continues to rely too heavily on proxies, competing methodologies and frequently repeated claims that eventually acquire the status of fact through repetition.

10. The consequences for social cohesion

This statistical failure has consequences beyond economic policy. It affects social cohesion.

The repeated assertion that white South Africans continue to own approximately 80% of the economy conveys a powerful underlying message: that more than three decades after apartheid, very little has changed.

It can reinforce a perception that those who accumulated wealth under the previous economic order have largely resisted transformation while the majority remain excluded from meaningful economic ownership.

If that accurately describes South Africa, the country needs to confront it. But if it does not, repeatedly presenting it as fact carries its own social cost.

If ownership has become substantially more representative, recognising that progress would not mean declaring transformation complete. It would not negate the large racial differences in average wealth, nor remove the need for further economic inclusion. It would simply allow South Africans to acknowledge progress where progress has occurred.

The reverse is equally important.

If credible measurement establishes that ownership remains overwhelmingly racially concentrated, the country could confront that reality on the basis of evidence, rather than accusation. Those arguing that transformation has progressed far enough would then have to engage with measurable facts.

Either outcome provides something the present debate frequently lacks: a common factual starting point. That has particular value in a society where questions of race, wealth and historical redress remain deeply contested.

11. The missing instrument of transformation policy

South Africa has developed an extensive architecture for measuring aspects of transformation. B-BBEE measures ownership structures, management control, skills development, enterprise development and procurement. Employment equity measures occupational representation. Sector charters establish targets. Public procurement increasingly incorporates transformation requirements.

These instruments provide important information. But they predominantly measure mechanisms, structures and proxies for transformation. They do not collectively answer the economy-wide outcome question:

How is the underlying stock of South African economic wealth ultimately distributed?

The consequence is potentially serious.

Government may continue concentrating intervention in areas where substantial transformation has already occurred while overlooking areas in which ownership remains highly concentrated. It may underestimate wealth accumulated by black South Africans through institutional investments.

Conversely, it may overestimate transformation where formal empowerment structures have not translated into substantial underlying wealth accumulation.

Without comprehensive measurement, policymakers cannot know which is occurring.

12. Assess the feasibility of a National Economic

Ownership and Wealth Index

South Africa should commission a funded feasibility study into a National Economic Ownership and Wealth Index. The B-BBEE Commission should lead the study, working with Statistics South Africa, the South African Reserve Bank, SARS, the Financial Sector Conduct Authority, CIPC, the deeds registration system and relevant public and private institutions.

The study should first establish what information is already collected, whether it records racial classification and ultimate beneficial ownership, and whether existing records can lawfully and reliably be linked. It should identify any additional disclosure requirements, data-sharing arrangements, privacy safeguards and legislative or regulatory changes that would be necessary. It should also assess how reported classifications could be validated without assuming that a comprehensive administrative record of each person’s race exists.

The study should test the practical ability to trace assets held through pension and provident funds, retirement annuities, collective investment schemes, insurers and other intermediaries to their underlying economic beneficiaries. It should examine listed equities, unlisted businesses, property, deposits and other significant assets, while identifying gaps involving informal and unregistered holdings. Foreign and state ownership would require separate treatment.

A proposed methodology should distinguish aggregate ownership by population group from average and median wealth within each group, and report each group’s population share alongside those measures. It should specify which estimates could be produced reliably, how frequently they could be updated, and what uncertainty or exclusions would need to be published with them.

Finally, the study should estimate implementation and continuing costs for reporting entities and public institutions, assess institutional capacity and identify a realistic funding source. It should compare a comprehensive administrative index with narrower or survey-based approaches. Only if a credible, lawful and proportionately funded method is demonstrated should government proceed to establish the Index, potentially in stages as data quality improves.

13. Conclusion

South Africa knows that it remains profoundly unequal. It knows that average wealth differs substantially by race. It knows that wealth is extraordinarily concentrated among a relatively small proportion of the population.

What it does not know with sufficient empirical precision is how the country's aggregate stock of economic assets is ultimately distributed by race.

Those are different questions.

The frequently repeated claim that white South Africans still own approximately 80% of the economy cannot presently be substantiated through a comprehensive economy-wide measure of ultimate beneficial ownership. There is sufficient empirical evidence to raise serious questions about the figure. But there is not sufficient evidence to replace it responsibly with another economy-wide percentage.

That distinction is important.

Perhaps transformation has progressed considerably further than South Africans realise. If so, government should be able to demonstrate that progress. Apart from allowing policy effectiveness to be assessed, doing so could contribute to social cohesion by demonstrating that the economy is changing even while substantial inequalities remain.

Perhaps transformation has progressed far less than intended. If so, government should be able to demonstrate that failure and identify precisely where intervention is required.

Either finding would advance the transformation debate. The present uncertainty does not.

After more than three decades of transformation policy, the absence of a credible national measure of ultimate racial economic ownership is itself a policy failure. One cannot credibly manage transformation if one does not measure transformation.

South Africa should stop debating one of its most consequential economic questions through competing estimates. A funded feasibility study led by the B-BBEE Commission should establish whether a credible and affordable national measure can be produced, what information and safeguards it would require, and which gaps would remain. Its findings should determine whether an index is warranted and, if so, how it should be built.

That study is the necessary first step towards answering, as reliably as the evidence permits, the deceptively simple question at the heart of the transformation debate: Who owns South Africa’s economy?

References

Chatterjee, A., Czajka, L. and Gethin, A. 2022. Wealth inequality in South Africa, 1993–2017, The World Bank Economic Review, 36(1):19-36. [Online] Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhab012 [accessed: 2 September 2026].

Government Pensions Administration Agency (GPAA). 2018. Annual Performance Plan 2018–2019. Pretoria: GPAA. [Online] Available at: https://www.gpaa.gov.za/downloads/APP%202018-2019.pdf [accessed: 2 September 2026].

Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE). 2015. At least 23% of Top 100 companies on stock exchange black-owned. [Online] Available at: https://www.politicsweb.co.za/news/at-least-23-of-top-100-companies-on-stock-exchange-black-owned-jse [accessed: 2 September 2026].

Kagiso Capital. 2023. Beyond the Façade: The Bittersweet Reality of Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment-Conference Report. [Online] Available at: https://www.kagisocapital.com/uploads/3/8/4/9/3849000/beyond_the_facade_conference_report_oct_2023_tg.pdf. [accessed: 2 September 2026]

Lamola, R. 2025. A response to Secretary Rubio’s Substack post, Department of International Relations and Cooperation, 4 December. [Online] Available at: https://dirco.gov.za/a-response-to-secretary-rubios-substack-post/ [accessed: 2 September 2026].

Minister of Finance. 2026. Question NW2454 to the Minister of Finance, Parliamentary Monitoring Group, 27 May. [Online] Available at: https://pmg.org.za/committee-question/37867/ [accessed: 2 September 2026].

Mokoena, J. and Setshedi, K. 2024. Note on the state of household finances in South Africa, South African Reserve Bank Quarterly Bulletin, June [Online] Available at: https://www.resbank.co.za/content/dam/sarb/publications/quarterly-bulletins/articles-and-notes/2024/03Note%20on%20the%20state%20of%20household%20finances%20in%20South%20Africa.pdf [accessed: 2 September 2026].

Momentum-Unisa. 2024. South African Household Wealth Index Q4 2023. [Online] Available at: https://sls-fresco.momentum.co.za/files/documents/financial-wellness/momentum-unisa-household-wealth-q4-2023.pdf [accessed: 2 September 2026].

Parliament of South Africa. 2026). Unrevised Hansard: Mini Plenary-National Assembly, Vote No. 8: National Treasury, 22 May. [Online] Available at: https://www.parliament.gov.za/storage/app/media/Docs/hansard/01mfgh4vvkiue4uud6dzf32bwvxavsuvn2.pdf [accessed: 2 September 2026].

Public Investment Corporation (PIC). 2025. Integrated Annual Report 2025. [Online]. Available at: https://www.pic.gov.za/documents/applications/17/8b2dde794b9e4f5fb0f947e435951b04_PIC%202025%20Integrated%20Annual%20Report.pdf [accessed: 2 September 2026].