( this has little to do with radical politics but I was asked to do some work with the anti-eviction campaign and here is the abbreviated result)
The case of the Hawkers being evicted from the Mitchells Plain CBD is one which should radically concern all South Africa’s consumers. Considering the increasing dominance of large retail chains ,and how this large scale capital is able to engineer state support as we see in this and other instances , consumers run the risk of not only dealing with inflated prices in a contracting economy ,but in the long term having financially colonized possibilities. The Tiger Brands saga, and other cases of price fixing, where retailers have kept mum, illustrate that no matter how beautifully branded the chain is, the consumers best interests will always defer to be the chains profit margins.
There is general consensus amongst analysts that South African retailers need to adopt a more mutual relationship with consumers, as the residue of apartheid has ensured that large scale capital precedes human public interests. The old battle of capital verses the people takes on especially sobering dimensions in the Mitchells Plain context. The bylaw enables the eviction of 800 hawkers, with a knock on effect on dependents, suppliers as well as consumers. Given that this is not an affluent area, and that a huge portion of household income is dedicated to food, there is no room for reticence in this situation.
Limitations to our response include the widely held assumption by consumers that supermarkets are cheaper than smaller stores. While this may hold true for convenience stores and other small stores situated in isolated areas, the Michells Plain hawkers are certainly not more expensive then the chains. While doing comparative pricing I was expecting the hawkers to be selling stock at very similar prices to Shoprite, however I found that more often then not the hawkers undercut the supermarkets substantially, and the quality of the produce was overall far superior. Two comparative shopping case studies undertaken were for a woman hypothetically buying back to school supplies and the other set of goods was grouped around buying weekly fruit and vegetables for a family. The results were shocking, as the groupings from the hawkers trumped every item in Shoprite with an overall saving of 25 percent in the case of school supplies and 34 percent in the case of groceries. Considering the high portion of income allocated to food by most people of this country, such a high percentage makes the City Councils actions unacceptable. As a result, by evicting the hawkers, the state is forcing consumers to pay more, as by making it difficult to access the hawkers by evicting them from the concentrated city centre. This is not in the public interest as it aids only large scale corporations, which as I have noted earlier do not have the peoples interests at heart.
The marginalization of small scale capital in this instance, something which is often tenuous to begin with, has far reaching effects which move beyond increases in grocery prices for Mitchells Plain inhabitants. By evicting the hawkers, the City of Cape Town is not only destroying the livelihoods of the hawkers and their suppliers, but also exerting unnecessary strain on the community as a whole. The dependents of the workers will find themselves without the constant stream of income which has in some cases been dependable for as long as 20 years and these individuals will become more vulnerable not only in regards to food security, but will find it increasingly easy to slip into what Seekings and Natrass have termed South Africa’s underclass.
The knock on effects will not only affect those depending on the income generated through hawking however, as the spatial restraints of the bylaw will mean that individuals who cannot afford the inflated prices of will have to either walk to an area where they can access food for cheaper, or buy less food of inferior quality for more money. This represents an unnecessary waste of time for mainly women who already are overworked and carry most of the burden in households. The safety issues of moving outside of the CBD also have implications mainly for women, and considering the long working hours of many individuals, create a completely unacceptable compromise of time and safety. Family dynamics will also come under strain the slowdown in the economic climate translates into stagnant or decreasing incomes. The person buying the food, in most cases the woman of the house will increasingly have to explain the sizable chunk of income devoted to food, and given our country’s appalling gender violence, chances are this will exacerbate already tense and oppressive situations.
Small scale capital is othered in economic dialogues, as are the workers. The effects of neo-colonialism and marginalization on the everyday life of individuals directly and indirectly impacted by profit mongering, are framed in language with delegitimizes these daily struggles for survival. This is especially clear when the individuals are described as facing obstacles or even worse are termed as obstacles, as the hawkers have been in this case. If we consider Ingrid Palmary’s work on Social Crime Prevention, the value of hawkers as ‘a crime prevention resource’ emphasizes the pivotal role hawkers play in urban areas, especially those of the periphery. In Mitchells Plains case they are not only offering cheaper goods, which are less likely to be irradiated or squashed and come from smaller suppliers, they are also performing a social function, as they interact and network with the community, supplying invaluable eyes on the street, a service Shoprite and co will never provide.
In conclusion it becomes clear that this is a case of the state working against the needs of individuals, and contrary to the electioneering rhetoric, that the poor are not only being marginalized but are being structurally exploited in favour of large scale capital. This action by the state should alert all consumers to begin demanding a country where this kind of thing isn’t allowed to happen, and solidarity with the Mitchells Plain Hawkers is an excellent way to begin to keep the authorities in check and ensure that democracy is not a complete farce.
The case of the Hawkers being evicted from the Mitchells Plain CBD is one which should radically concern all South Africa’s consumers. Considering the increasing dominance of large retail chains ,and how this large scale capital is able to engineer state support as we see in this and other instances , consumers run the risk of not only dealing with inflated prices in a contracting economy ,but in the long term having financially colonized possibilities. The Tiger Brands saga, and other cases of price fixing, where retailers have kept mum, illustrate that no matter how beautifully branded the chain is, the consumers best interests will always defer to be the chains profit margins.
There is general consensus amongst analysts that South African retailers need to adopt a more mutual relationship with consumers, as the residue of apartheid has ensured that large scale capital precedes human public interests. The old battle of capital verses the people takes on especially sobering dimensions in the Mitchells Plain context. The bylaw enables the eviction of 800 hawkers, with a knock on effect on dependents, suppliers as well as consumers. Given that this is not an affluent area, and that a huge portion of household income is dedicated to food, there is no room for reticence in this situation.
Limitations to our response include the widely held assumption by consumers that supermarkets are cheaper than smaller stores. While this may hold true for convenience stores and other small stores situated in isolated areas, the Michells Plain hawkers are certainly not more expensive then the chains. While doing comparative pricing I was expecting the hawkers to be selling stock at very similar prices to Shoprite, however I found that more often then not the hawkers undercut the supermarkets substantially, and the quality of the produce was overall far superior. Two comparative shopping case studies undertaken were for a woman hypothetically buying back to school supplies and the other set of goods was grouped around buying weekly fruit and vegetables for a family. The results were shocking, as the groupings from the hawkers trumped every item in Shoprite with an overall saving of 25 percent in the case of school supplies and 34 percent in the case of groceries. Considering the high portion of income allocated to food by most people of this country, such a high percentage makes the City Councils actions unacceptable. As a result, by evicting the hawkers, the state is forcing consumers to pay more, as by making it difficult to access the hawkers by evicting them from the concentrated city centre. This is not in the public interest as it aids only large scale corporations, which as I have noted earlier do not have the peoples interests at heart.
The marginalization of small scale capital in this instance, something which is often tenuous to begin with, has far reaching effects which move beyond increases in grocery prices for Mitchells Plain inhabitants. By evicting the hawkers, the City of Cape Town is not only destroying the livelihoods of the hawkers and their suppliers, but also exerting unnecessary strain on the community as a whole. The dependents of the workers will find themselves without the constant stream of income which has in some cases been dependable for as long as 20 years and these individuals will become more vulnerable not only in regards to food security, but will find it increasingly easy to slip into what Seekings and Natrass have termed South Africa’s underclass.
The knock on effects will not only affect those depending on the income generated through hawking however, as the spatial restraints of the bylaw will mean that individuals who cannot afford the inflated prices of will have to either walk to an area where they can access food for cheaper, or buy less food of inferior quality for more money. This represents an unnecessary waste of time for mainly women who already are overworked and carry most of the burden in households. The safety issues of moving outside of the CBD also have implications mainly for women, and considering the long working hours of many individuals, create a completely unacceptable compromise of time and safety. Family dynamics will also come under strain the slowdown in the economic climate translates into stagnant or decreasing incomes. The person buying the food, in most cases the woman of the house will increasingly have to explain the sizable chunk of income devoted to food, and given our country’s appalling gender violence, chances are this will exacerbate already tense and oppressive situations.
Small scale capital is othered in economic dialogues, as are the workers. The effects of neo-colonialism and marginalization on the everyday life of individuals directly and indirectly impacted by profit mongering, are framed in language with delegitimizes these daily struggles for survival. This is especially clear when the individuals are described as facing obstacles or even worse are termed as obstacles, as the hawkers have been in this case. If we consider Ingrid Palmary’s work on Social Crime Prevention, the value of hawkers as ‘a crime prevention resource’ emphasizes the pivotal role hawkers play in urban areas, especially those of the periphery. In Mitchells Plains case they are not only offering cheaper goods, which are less likely to be irradiated or squashed and come from smaller suppliers, they are also performing a social function, as they interact and network with the community, supplying invaluable eyes on the street, a service Shoprite and co will never provide.
In conclusion it becomes clear that this is a case of the state working against the needs of individuals, and contrary to the electioneering rhetoric, that the poor are not only being marginalized but are being structurally exploited in favour of large scale capital. This action by the state should alert all consumers to begin demanding a country where this kind of thing isn’t allowed to happen, and solidarity with the Mitchells Plain Hawkers is an excellent way to begin to keep the authorities in check and ensure that democracy is not a complete farce.
by caragh at May 06, 2009 07:29 AM
