A recent report from the World Bank indicates that South Africa may want to consider extending its 15% corporate income tax incentive to all Special Economic Zones (SEZs), which is an appealing prospect.
This presents the government with a chance to celebrate external recognition while avoiding a much more complex and necessary review of the current state of our national industrial strategy.
Minister Parks Tau from the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition (dtic) quickly welcomed the report’s conclusions, viewing them as evidence of “the significant progress we’ve made”.
He highlighted 13 designated zones, R31.7 billion in attracted private investments, and 28,821 direct jobs. At a glance, supported by a global institution’s endorsement that South Africa can manage a “world-class” program, the narrative seems complete.
Read:
Rethinking SEZs: World Bank advocates for competitive tax incentives
SA seeks to attract R750bn for industrial hubs by April
However, this assessment merits careful inspection. No level of optimism can change a persistent structural fact: South Africa’s SEZs are slowly deteriorating due to six distinct institutional issues.
Behind the promotional facade, Parliament’s oversight reports tell a less favorable story. The uncomfortable fact is that an area may have full, legislated SEZ status yet be entirely incapable of securing rail connections, port access, customs licenses, or an administrative board without facing years of intergovernmental delays.
The systemic stagnation plaguing our economic zones is aggravated by six identifiable structural weaknesses:
The strategy of provincial turn-taking
The dtic has traditionally allocated SEZs based on the vaguely defined “economic potential of a region”. In practice, this has morphed into a political rotation of opportunities among provinces, rather than a cohesive national sectoral strategy aligned with industrial demands.
A critical 2024 policy analysis by the Inclusive Society Institute (ISI) found that South Africa’s SEZs “have not been integrated into a long-term development plan, industrialisation, or growth strategy” that leverages the nation’s actual global trade benefits.
Instead of consolidating industries where global value chains indicate they could thrive, we build speculative infrastructure based on geographic equity. While capabilities vary across our economy, they are rarely represented in our designated zones.
ADVERTISEMENT
CONTINUE READING BELOW
Read: SA looking into privately-owned SEZs to tackle deindustrialisation
Split governance authorities
The fundamental design of the SEZ program has a significant shortcoming: while the national government crafts and funds these zones, provincial and municipal authorities govern them and provide land or assets.
Currently, the dtic has limited authority when operations fall behind.
It cannot independently appoint an administrative board, nor can it compel a slow provincial licensing agency to speed up processes.
This legal loophole was candidly recognized by former Minister Ebrahim Patel, who admitted to the NCOP that the dtic “historically was just the funder, and it had no say over anything else”. Financial responsibility and executive power are disconnected.
Read/Listen: Shell realigns business, tightening public expenditure, and local SEZs
The tapering incentive mirage
The promise of tax relief is also inconsistent. Out of South Africa’s thirteen designated SEZs, only six qualify for the desired 15% corporate income tax rate, and the National Treasury has placed a strict 2031 sunset clause on these incentives.
When the World Bank’s July 2026 report suggested extending this reduced rate to all zones, Parliament’s Select Committee on Economic Development responded with noticeable caution within 48 hours.
The committee stated that the recommendation “requires careful consideration”, adding that its own findings revealed a highly polarized landscape: some zones prosper, while others urgently require “stronger governance, improved implementation, and greater accountability”.
Investor presentations convey one narrative; the state’s own oversight structures suggest another.
ADVERTISEMENT:
CONTINUE READING BELOW
Read: Why SA needs to lower its corporate income tax rate
SEZ status is not customs status
Sars must individually license each enterprise within the zone, and these licenses require yearly renewal. For example, the Atlantis SEZ has historically struggled to qualify for its building tax allowance because it required a separate third approval from the finance minister.
Three distinct governmental entities, three entirely separate regulatory pathways, and no legal requirement for coordination.
Read:
It’s easier said than done, SEZ the dti
Coega aspires to lead in socio-economic development
Unanswered questions on labour flexibility
While South Africa’s zones offer duty-free imports, standard VAT relief, and a reduced corporate tax rate for selected firms, they provide no concessions regarding labor.
The US State Department’s 2025 Investment Climate Statement clearly affirmed that national labor laws apply without exemption within an SEZ.
All provisions of the Labour Relations Act are applicable as they are elsewhere. For labor-intensive, export-focused manufacturers that these zones aim to attract, this total lack of flexibility is a substantial liability, undermining our competitiveness compared to nimble competitors like Vietnam or Bangladesh.
Dependency on the uncompelled
The most obvious vulnerability of the SEZ paradigm lies in its complete reliance on state-owned monopolies that the zones cannot compel.
Take the Tshwane Automotive SEZ (TASEZ), which was created to support Ford’s extensive export operations based on the commitment of a high-capacity rail corridor bypassing Durban.
ADVERTISEMENT:
CONTINUE READING BELOW
Ford’s specialized rail siding was built and ready, yet years later, it still needs to transport most of its vehicles via road freight.
Freeport Saldanha has encountered similar obstacles since its founding, struggling to secure essential access to vital port quay-side infrastructure.
The dtic has affirmed to Parliament that the national logistics network is not reliable enough for planning, compelling officials to negotiate personally, case by case, to ensure the basic rail and port access that SEZ status should have initially guaranteed.
The pattern and the fix
Bringing together these challenges reveals a distinct pattern. We have six independent institutions operating on six different tracks, none legally compelled to coordinate: the dtic determines site locations; provinces manage governance; Treasury sets tax rates; Sars regulates customs; Labour provides no flexibility; and state-owned enterprises like Transnet maintain a monopoly on infrastructure that no SEZ can legally enforce.
Individually, each bureaucratic action is justifiable. Collectively, they create an economic zone that appears coherent in a PowerPoint presentation but remains caught in six institutional barriers to functionality.
The answer is not to declare a 14th SEZ or hold yet another glamorous investment summit. Instead, it necessitates a fundamental paradigm shift: selecting industrial sectors based on genuine global comparative advantage rather than provincial turn-taking, and identifying legal frameworks to ensure that all six regulatory tracks converge under a single, fully accountable authority well before a new zone is designated.
Unless we integrate the machinery of the state, our SEZs will continue to be expensive illusions of unmet expectations and industrial disappointment.
Nils Flaatten is an independent advisor on security, strategic affairs, and governance.
