why a study on young, black entrepreneurs in Johannesburg's informal economy matters

382 Pages·2014·3.25 MB·English

Chapter One
Setting the scene: why a study on young, black entrepreneurs in
Johannesburg’s informal economy matters

1
1.1 Introduction
South African youth, and in particular black youth, form a particularly important social
category for analysis. Yet, today’s black youth are the most socio-economically
vulnerable of population groups in South Africa. Poor education, lack of significant
post-school employment opportunities, a rapidly globalising economy and the
ravages of HIV and Aids, place these youth in an especially precarious position.
Nonetheless, much stock is placed on youth fuelling the potential of a future
economy, and hence, it is important to understand how they adjust, survive and
navigate their economic futures. This said, while youth have served as the focal
point of many studies, they do not feature prominently in entrepreneurial literature as
a distinct subgroup (cf Walstad and Kourilsky, 1998; Kourilsky and Walstad, 1998).
At the same time, extant studies seek rather to valorise the notion of youth
entrepreneurship as a panacea for youth unemployment (see Steenkamp, van der
Merwe and Athayde, 2011).
Extant research on youth entrepreneurship, particularly in South Africa, has tended
to explore attitude and aspirations of youth (Kew, Herrington, Litovsky and Gale,
2013), motives and intent underscoring youth entrepreneurial behaviour as well as
challenges facing young entrepreneurs (see Fatoki, 2010; Fatoki and Chindoga,
2011), entrepreneurship as a career alternative (see Burger, Mahadea and O’Neill,
2004), support initiatives and the development of young entrepreneurs (see Kroon,
de Klerk and Dippenaar, 2003), as well as youth entrepreneurship as an alternative
to conventional employment (see Nasser, du Preez and Herrmann, 2003). Beyond
this, early attempts have also been made to categorise youth entrepreneurs based
on both the characteristics of the business itself as well as on the nature of the

2
young entrepreneur (Lewis and Massey, 2003). Despite this, the field of youth
entrepreneurship remains ‘…relatively underserved in terms of empirical research
and underdeveloped in terms of theories’ (Lewis and Massey, 2003: 214).
The informal economy serves as the context for an exploration of youth
entrepreneurial behaviour in this study. This is largely because of the high incidents
of youth participation in the informal economy, but also because of the marginalising
effect of the space itself, such that youth as a vulnerable group are further
marginalised. Thus, the informal economy provides an ideal backdrop to a
consideration of aspiration, legitimacy, and attainment amongst young, black
entrepreneurs. Here, specifically, Christianson, Utas and Vigh (2006) consideration
of youth ‘becoming’ is extended such that young black South African’s aspire to
become entrepreneurs.
The remainder of this chapter extends the introduction to this research by deepening
the rationale for this study. Here, particularly, a consideration of the relevance of
black South African youth as a research subject will be explored. This will then lead
to a critical exploration of entrepreneurship within this space before a more fine
grained account of the informal economy is provided. In so doing, a consideration of
how black youth within the informal economy might be considered entrepreneurial
will be provided. The rationale will conclude with brief consideration of values as a
mechanism for youth to ‘become’, thus providing a platform for deeper consideration
in Chapter Two.

3
1.2 Conceptualising the ‘new young lions’
In reinvigorating black consciousness in South Africa, black youths were dubbed the
‘young lions’ in the 1970s, displaying innovation, tenacity and creativity (Seekings,
1996; Everatt, 2007). Despite this, post-Apartheid, their violent expression of their
disillusionment with broken promises of greater prosperity, job creation and state
failure has subsequently led to youth alternatively being called ‘tsotsis’ as well as the
lost generation (Cruse O’ Brian, 1996; Seekings, 1996). Yet, such representations
of change agent and upstart are not dissimilar to how entrepreneurs are broadly
perceived and understood. Through an embodiment of such qualities, youth might
be envisaged as a distinct category of entrepreneur, capable of operationalising the
entrepreneurial process in different, potentially novel ways. This then might lead to a
new title of ‘new’ young lion’.
The research undertaken in this thesis is therefore fundamentally concerned with
understanding youth as entrepreneur. Specifically, it seeks to explore how black
youth aspire to an entrepreneurial identity through the attainment of entrepreneurial
capitals in order to seek legitimacy through entrepreneurial performance and
formalisation, thus being agents of economic transformation. However, in the first
instance, it is important to establish a rationale for a study on black youth.
1.2.1 Studying youth
In supporting youth as a discernible and, indeed, important subject for research, on
the African continent, Durham (2000: 113) suggests that:

4
Youth are increasingly compelling subjects for study in Africa …. To pay attention
to youth is to pay close attention to the topology of the social landscape – to
power and agency; public, national and domestic spaces and identities, and their
articulation and disjunctures; memory history and sense of change; globalization
and governance; gender and class.
As such, therefore, the youth experience provides an increasingly important lens
through which society is viewed. In giving youth primacy in African studies, Diouf
(2003: 2) suggests:
Located at the heart of both analytical apparatuses and political action (young
people) have also become a preoccupation of politicians, social workers, and
communities in Africa. Undoubtedly, the centrality of this subject is connected
to the extraordinary turnaround over the last three decades in the way African
societies seem themselves.
African youth must be at the forefront of African studies for a number of reasons.
The first is that African populations are increasingly becoming youthful (Diouf, 2003).
In South Africa, this is no less true, with black African youth constituting some 57%
of the total population (and 72% of the total black African population) (Statistics
South Africa, 2013). This implies that, as a social group, their socio-economic
integration and contribution is of significant importance.
Yet, conceptually, the notion of youth is quite difficult to circumscribe given the
widely different roles attributed to youths, particularly in an African context (Everatt,
2007). Despite this, a number of ways have been posited to define youth. At the
most elemental level youth might be understood entirely in terms of a liminal phase
through their positioning and categorisation as a life stage (Christiansen et al., 2006;
Durham, 2000; Vigh, 2006). If this approach were to be followed, youth would be
universally positioned somewhere between adolescence and adulthood, and would
be seen to be marking time before attaining adult status (Vigh, 2006). Thus, their

5
status would largely be determined by dint of their age and/or bio-psycho
development.
Governments, in conferring rights and duties to their citizens, often rely on age, and
life-stage as a marker to ‘other’ youth. For instance, in South Africa, the Bill of
Rights, in the Constitution, considers youths to be those under the age of 18. At the
same time, the Children’s Act 38 of 2005 affords an age of majority and thus a ‘legal
adult status’ to individuals who are 18 years or older. On attaining the age of 18,
South African’s are able of their own volition, to engage in state-decreed ‘adult
behaviours’ such as voting, contracting (including marriage), the purchasing and
consumption of alcohol, as well as driving.
Other definitions, however, show a marked overlap between ages traditionally
afforded to childhood, adolescence, youth and adulthood. Harrison (in Abdool
Karim and Abdool Karim, 2005: 262-263) defines youths as those aged 10-24. The
United Nations regards young people as those aged between 15 and 24 whilst
Morrow, Panday and Richter (2005: 7) define youth as those between the ages of 18
and 35. Finally, Chigunta, Schnurr, James-Watson and Torres (2005:3)
conceptualise youth as individuals between the ages of 15 and 29.
At the same time, it might be argued that the notion of ‘coming of age’ in South Africa
similarly involves associated complexities of financial success, and intricate
interplays between ‘masculinity’ and adulthood. Khunou (2006) for instance argues
that the notion of manhood is strongly ascribed to money in her study of the
maintenance system and its impact on gender identities in Johannesburg.

6
Therefore, the attainment of adult status amongst marginalised black youth is
confounded by the attainment of a measure of financial success.
This then suggests that the use of age as a universal marker of youth is not
uncomplicated. Realistically, in many cultures and societies, the notion of ‘coming of
age’ or attainment of adult status, is often marked by ritualistic social behaviour on
one hand such as, for instance, ceremonial Xhosa circumcision (Nkosi, 2013), and/or
the attainment of a particular socio-economic status on the other. It is because of
this that the bio-psycho focus is often criticised for being socio-culturally insensitive
and indeed, overly narrow. At the same time, strict liminal approaches to
determining a non-adult or youth status leaves youth without agentive qualities, since
such categorisations remove any sense of distinct identity formation.
Christianson et al. (2006), alternatively, provide an accomplished examination of the
youth condition in Africa. By analysing youth through the dual lens of ‘being’ and
‘becoming’, they present an understanding of culture and identity creation among
youth in a variety of different contexts. Brought into sharp relief is the struggle that
African youth face as they attempt to assume adult status, making delineation of
‘youth’ increasingly more complicated and difficult.
Many cultures might well not link youth to closely defined life stage such that
individuals of a wide range of ages now claim the status of youth. Here, youth status
is conferred before puberty or well into the 40’s (Durham, 2000). In South Africa,
evidence is found for this supposition, in the South African National Youth Policy
(2009-2014), which defines youth as persons between the ages of 14 and 35. Such
a broad categorisation of youth is not uncommon with an African context

7
(Langevang, Namatova and Dawa, 2012; Langevang and Gough, 2012). Despite
this, it is important to acknowledge the complexities associated with this approach.
Everatt (2007:14), for instance, suggested that:
The life experiences, context and needs of a 14 year old are radically different
from a 35 year old. When we add the complications of gender, race, class,
urban/rural location and others that underpin South African society, the
complexity becomes impossible to contain within an already blurry concept
such as 'youth'
Implicit in his criticism is that, by being overly inclusive in definitions of youth, ‘intra-
generational gaps’ might be too massive (the historical, cultural, and political context
of youth in South Africa notwithstanding), and broader age bands would simply
complicate attempts to identify shared identities and subcultures. At the same time,
it is unlikely that youth within such a categorisation will share the same lived
experiences in a uniform manner.
Nonetheless, socio-historical reasons account for South Africa’s definition of youth
which is seen to reflect the engagement of black youth in struggle politics between
1976 and 1990, and their subsequent title of the so-called lost generation (see
Everatt, 2007, Seekings, 1996). Historically, therefore, black South African youth
have displayed a marked propensity in bringing about social transformation (see for
instance Seekings, 1996; Bundy, 1987; Everatt, 1995, 2007). Yet, as Zegeye
(2004), in reflecting on youth culture in Mamelodi township, suggests ‘(b)lack youth
as a social generation manifested an uneven level of consciousness when dealing
with pre- and post-apartheid social reality’. Thus, as he rightly points out, whilst
resistance to apartheid was manifest, it was not common to all young people, and
this lack of commitment to the struggle was punished by other youth (Zegeye, 2004).

8
Therefore, generations should not be treated as a homogenised whole (as
categorisations such as generations ‘X and Y’ are want to do) (cf Bogatsu, 2002).
This study, however, in largely keeping with the South African National Youth Policy
(2009-2014), defines youth as those between the ages of 15 and 35. The slight
upward adjustment of the lower limit accommodates the minimum working age at
South African law of 15 in terms of section 43 of the Basic Conditions of Employment
Act 75 of 1997 (Van Aardt, 2012). This is a critical consideration for a study on
entrepreneurial identity aspiration and legitimacy, despite the acknowledgement that
that circumstances might dictate that those younger than 15 aspire to an adult
status.
At the same time, the upper limit of 35 is retained. In so doing, it is acknowledged
that the notion of youth in South Africa is confounded by a history of socio-political
exclusion. Through greater definitional inclusivity, youth are considered a social
category, rather than as a mere biological life stage, thus accounting for all the
associated socio-cultural complexities of a ‘coming of age’ in an African context.
1.2.2 The importance of black youth in South Africa
Having reflected on the notion of youth, it is equally important to consider the
relevance of a study on black youth. In other words, why should race, in a study on
youth entrepreneurship, matter? From an economic perspective, at the very least,
as Gelb (2003) suggested, racial divides were less pronounced, with intra-race
inequalities in the distribution of income amongst black South Africans having
decreased significantly some ten years after the first democratic elections. This

9
suggests, arguably, that class now potentially underscores racial inequality, rather
than pure racial discrimination (Seekings and Nattrass, 2005). Yet, it is precisely
because race has been so central to South African society, given South Africa’s
turbulent and polarised history, that it still remains relevant. Racial categorisations
were used historically by the white ruling class to distinguish between black,
coloured, Indian and white South Africans in order to entrench socio-political and
economic privilege (Posel, 2001; Seekings, 2008).
Such racial categorisations still prevail some 20 years after South Africa’s first non-
racial democratic elections. There are three possible reasons for this. The first is
that these categorisations form the basis for post-apartheid redress, as South African
society seeks to overcome past legacies through efforts to empower those that were
historically disadvantaged (Seekings, 2008). The second more functional reason for
the persistence of racial categorisations posited by Stephan and Stephan (2000) is
that they quite simply are used as way to categorise country-specific data (Urban,
2011a). A third explanation is that they still are very much part of a lived experience
for South Africans, retaining cultural significance, as they underscore the reality of
inherited and existing social divides, often defined along racial lines (Seekings,
2008). For instance, South Africa’s Gini coefficient of 63.1 indicates a high degree of
structural inequality in South Africa’s economy (World Bank, 2013).
Arguably, the most compelling reason for a study of black youth in South Africa is the
economic vulnerability of this particular social category. While South Africa is often
seen as the ‘economic powerhouse’ of the African continent, unemployment remains
relatively high at some 26.5%. Statistics South Africa (Statssa) (2013), in its first
quarter report for 2013, points to the fact that unemployment amongst youth, whilst

10