2 September 2025
Blaai af vir Afrikaanse weergawe.
The Free Market Foundation (FMF), in association with the European Policy Information Center (EPICENTER) and the Initiative for African Trade and Prosperity (IATP), this week launched its report, “The Brussels effect in South African policymaking: An imperialism of expedience?”, and called for strategic domestic policy adaptation over blind obedience to European Union (EU) regulatory standards.
The report was launched at a press briefing on Tuesday, 2 September.
The “Brussels effect” is the phenomenon whereby, firstly, non-EU firms around the world adapt their commercial practices to EU regulations which are often more burdensome and restrictive than domestic regulators, rather than complying with two regulatory regimes. Domestic regulators then tend to follow this up by adapting their regulations to the EU dispensation.
“This race to the bottom is harmful to developing economies like South Africa, where domestic circumstances are not akin to European ones,” says Martin van Staden, FMF Head of Policy and a co-author of the report.
The report focused particularly on South Africa’s domestication of the EU regulatory posture in the area of technology and digital innovation. European Union instruments such as the General Data Protection Regulation, the Digital Markets Act, the Copyright Directive, and the Artificial Intelligence Act, have to various degrees found expression in South Africa’s Protection of Personal Information Act, recommendations of the Competition Commission, and government discussion documents around the regulation of artificial intelligence (AI).
“South Africa’s economic realities, characterised by growth rates increasingly rounding to zero, the highest formal unemployment rate in the world, and declining investment, contrast starkly with those of the EU. Adopting EU regulations without adaptation exacerbates these challenges, entrenching dependency and limiting competitiveness.” says Dr Morné Malan, FMF Senior Associate and another co-author of the report.
Policies designed for wealthier economies, where significant compliance costs could more easily be absorbed, stifle innovation and economic dynamism. Developing states should exercise caution, and rather craft solutions tailor-made to their own realities.
The report recommends strategic adaptation over passive compliance, urging South Africa to prioritise flexibility, innovation, and liberalisation. Specific proposals include abandoning excessive formalism and red-tape in favour of a substantive, outcomes-based approach, resisting competition regulation that could yield far-reaching unintended consequences for consumers, and adopting a light-touch approach to AI regulation to foster a competitive digital economy.
“Policymakers should not make themselves complicit in a bureaucratic imperialism of expedience,” concludes Van Staden. “Truly ‘best practice’ around the world should be taken note of, but international ‘worst practice’ should not be used to excuse bad domestic policy.”
Click here to read the full report.
Click here to view the press briefing of Tuesday, 2 September 2025.
Ends.
***
Nuwe FMF-verslag waarsku teen onkritiese aanneming van EU-regulasies deur SA wetgewers
2 September 2025
Scroll up for English version.
Die Vryemarkstigting (FMF), in samewerking met die European Policy Information Center (EPICENTER) en die Initiative for African Trade and Prosperity (IATP), het vandeesweek sy verslag, “The Brussels effect in South African Policymaking: An imperialism of expedience?”, bekendgestel, en eis dat plaaslike beleidmakers strategiese beleidsaanpassing toepas bo blinde navolging van die Europese Unie (EU) se regulerende standaarde.
Die verslag is tydens ’n perskonferensie op Dinsdag, 2 September, bekendgestel.
Die “Brussel-effek” verwys na die verskynsel waar, eerstens, buite-EU-maatskappye wêreldwyd hul kommersiële praktyke aanpas by EU-regulasies, wat dikwels meer beperkend en veeleisend is as plaaslike regulasies, in plaas daarvan om aan twee regulatoriese regimes te voldoen. Plaaslike reguleerders is dan geneig om hul regulasies aan te pas by die EU-raamwerk.
“Hierdie ‘race to the bottom’ is nadelig vir ontwikkelende ekonomieë soos Suid-Afrika, waar plaaslike omstandighede nie ooreenstem met dié van Europa nie,” sê Martin van Staden, FMF Beleidshoof en mede-outeur van die verslag.
Die verslag fokus veral op Suid-Afrika se domestisering van die EU se regulatoriese benadering op die gebied van tegnologie en digitale innovasie. EU-instrumente soos die General Data Protection Regulation, die Digtal Markets Act, die Copyright Directive, en die Artificial Intelligence Act, het in verskeie mates uitdrukking gevind in Suid-Afrika se Wet op die Beskerming van Persoonlike Inligting, aanbevelings van die Mededingingskommissie, en besprekingsdokumente oor die regulering van kunsmatige intelligensie (KI).
“Suid-Afrika se ekonomiese werklikhede, gekenmerk deur groeikoerse wat al hoe meer na nul neig, die hoogste formele werkloosheidsyfer ter wêreld, en dalende investering, verskil skerp van dié van die EU. Die aanneming van EU-regulasies sonder aanpassing vererger hierdie uitdagings, versterk afhanklikheid, en beperk mededingendheid,” sê dr. Morné Malan, FMF Senior Medewerker en nog ’n mede-outeur van die verslag.
Beleide wat ontwerp is vir welvarender ekonomieë, waar aansienlike nakomingskoste makliker geabsorbeer kan word, onderdruk innovasie en ekonomiese dinamiek. Ontwikkelende lande moet versigtig wees en eerder oplossings skep wat pasgemaak is vir hul eie werklikhede.
Die verslag beveel strategiese aanpassing bo passiewe nakoming aan, en dring daarop aan dat Suid-Afrika buigsaamheid, innovasie, en liberalisering prioritiseer. Spesifieke voorstelle sluit in die verwerping van oormatige formalisme en burokrasie ten gunste van ’n substantiewe, uitkomsgebaseerde benadering, die teenstaan van mededingingsregulasies wat verstrekkende, onbedoelde gevolge vir verbruikers kan hê, en die aanvaarding van ’n laissez-faire benadering tot KI-regulering om ’n mededingende digitale ekonomie te bevorder.
“Beleidmakers moet hulself nie medepligtig maak aan ’n burokratiese imperialisme van gerief nie,” sluit Van Staden af. “Werklik ‘beste praktyk’ wêreldwyd moet in ag geneem word, maar internasionale ‘slegste praktyk’ moet nie gebruik word om swak plaaslike beleid te regverdig nie.”
Klik hier om die volledige verslag te lees.
Klik hier om die perskonferensie van Dinsdag, 2 September 2025, te besigtig.
Einde.
