During the annual Youth Day, South Africa frequently calls on young people to become entrepreneurs. Although entrepreneurship is a vital avenue for addressing youth unemployment in the country, critics argue that this approach has become overly simplistic and detached from the realities required to build sustainable businesses.
Despite acknowledging the importance of entrepreneurial education, simply completing a course or seminar is insufficient. The ability to run a business differs significantly from the actual capacity to build one. Ambition alone is not enough if founders lack the necessary education, experience, networks, and supportive environment to create long-term companies.
It is crucial to move away from romanticizing those who abandon their studies for a startup, claiming it is a reliable development strategy. A more realistic, albeit slower, path involves completing formal schooling, developing literacy and numeracy, pursuing further education, gaining work experience, understanding customer needs, and learning how organizations function before attempting to build on a solid foundation.
The country requires more builders and specialists capable of solving problems, rather than merely individuals forced into survival mode due to labor market failures. While survival-oriented businesses deserve respect, they differ from enterprises focused on growth. A person selling merely to survive is not in the same position as a founder creating a company capable of hiring hundreds of employees.
According to World Bank data, small and medium-sized enterprises account for about 90% of all businesses and over half of global employment. In South Africa, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) estimates that small businesses provide between 50% and 60% of the workforce and contribute at least 34% to GDP. However, too few small firms transition into medium-sized employers, which the country urgently needs.
Part of the issue is that growing companies are burdened too early with requirements typical of large, mature corporations. Amendments to South Africa's small business definitions classify micro-enterprises (up to 10 employees), small enterprises (11 to 50), and medium enterprises (51 to 250), with varying revenue thresholds depending on the sector. Nevertheless, a company with 60, 100, or even 250 employees is not a giant but often a small, growing business striving for professionalization, market access, cash flow management, and skilled recruitment.
If South Africa wants more young entrepreneurs to become employers, policy must recognize this distinction. Regulation should be different for large, established firms capable of absorbing it, and lighter, simpler, and growth-oriented for truly small and scaling enterprises. Compliance should not become an obstacle for a promising company when hiring its next ten employees.
Similar principles apply to finance, procurement, and networks, as strong entrepreneurial ecosystems are built not only on motivation. As shown by the Startup Genome Global Report on Startup Ecosystems, competitive ecosystems depend on the interplay of funding, talent, market reach, connectivity, and knowledge. This means young founders need practical pathways to market entry, mentors who understand scaling, early customers willing to take risks, as well as access to capital and networks that allow promising companies to grow.
Young entrepreneurs also need higher-quality role models: not just famous founders, tender entrepreneurs, or Silicon Valley myths, but authoritative South African builders who solve real problems, hire people, serve customers honestly, and create useful products or services.
As stated in the Stanford Social Innovation Review, the concept of 'social entrepreneurship' may mask a simple truth: much of honest and productive entrepreneurship is already social activity when it creates value, jobs, and improves services upon which the population depends. This is the kind of discussion that should take place on Youth Day, because entrepreneurship will help develop South Africa's future leaders only if we stop viewing it as a slogan and start seeing it as a system that needs to be built.
Young people do not need another call for intensified struggle. They need schools that build competencies, universities that introduce ideas and technologies, workplaces that provide experience, investors willing to support them, worthy examples to emulate, and a government that steps aside, giving small businesses room to grow.
The decline in South Africa's performance in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) raises serious concerns as it jeopardizes the country's global competitiveness. Given that systemic inequality persists, educators and policymakers must join forces to build a sustainable environment that fosters future innovators.
South Africa's indicators in critical STEM fields remain consistently low compared to global standards. This points to deep-seated systemic issues that require immediate resolution if the country aims to thrive in a knowledge-based economy. The consequences of this educational deficit extend beyond academic statistics: without a strong foundation in STEM, students are insufficiently prepared for careers in research, technology, and innovation, which are key to sustainable growth and enhanced global competitiveness.
Professor Aradhana Mansing, Senior Manager of Research Directorate at MANCOSA, emphasizes that 'addressing these gaps is not only an educational imperative but a national priority.' She notes that strengthening STEM education will expand opportunities for future generations, enhance resilience, and ensure South Africa's full participation in the rapidly evolving digital and technological landscape.
Problems begin at the secondary education stage, where existing inequality weakens the trajectory of STEM development in South Africa even before students enter university. This is not merely an issue of academic results but one of unequal opportunities. Students from underfunded schools face overcrowded classrooms, a shortage of qualified teachers, limited access to laboratories, and inadequate digital tools. This historical injustice continues to affect learning outcomes despite post-apartheid progress.
According to Professor Mansing, 'from a higher education perspective, this creates a narrowing effect across the entire chain.' Fewer students achieve the necessary subject combinations and grade levels to enter engineering, IT, medical, and other STEM programs. Consequently, universities recruit STEM candidates from a smaller pool. Although admitted students may require gap-filling programs, this situation strains educational institutions and can negatively impact student retention rates.
Youth unemployment in South Africa ranks among the highest globally. Employers, consequently, face shortages of skilled personnel in vital sectors such as cybersecurity, software development, data analysis, and engineering. This paradox—a lack of skilled labor amidst high unemployment—highlights deep systemic weaknesses. Furthermore, the emigration of many qualified STEM professionals to countries with better prospects exacerbates the skills shortage.
As Professor Mansing observes, many capable students opt out of STEM due to limited access to labs, coding, and robotics, as well as a lack of relevant role models. She concludes: 'Our task is not just to prepare graduates, but to create a seamless ecosystem that identifies talent early, supports students throughout the process, and retains skills to meet national demand.'
South Africa has educational policies, but the real challenge lies in translating policy intent into effective implementation. While strategies aim to boost digital skills and stimulate innovation, efforts remain fragmented and poorly integrated within the education sector. This lack of coherence significantly undermines the creation of a productive pathway for students aspiring to study STEM.
Professor Mansing points to persistent barriers, including unequal school funding, insufficient teacher development, a shortage of qualified mathematics and science instructors, and a mismatch between curricula in basic education and the changing demands of the labor market. These systemic obstacles cause students to move through disjointed systems, often remaining unprepared for future opportunities.
The consequences of this inadequate infrastructure are felt across society. Language barriers further complicate the situation, as many students study mathematics and natural sciences in English, which is not their mother tongue, making scientific terminology a significant hurdle even if their conceptual understanding is strong.
Professor Mansing advocates for the establishment of a coordinated national STEM ecosystem in South Africa. She argues that collaboration among universities, schools, government, industry, and communities is crucial for creating clear pathways from early learning to employment. Without such alignment, fragmented interventions will only lead to disparate outcomes, perpetuating inequality instead of unlocking the nation's full potential.
Higher education institutions must play an active role in strengthening the STEM trajectory in South Africa. This responsibility cannot rest solely on admission and enrollment; universities must act as active partners in talent development throughout the entire educational ecosystem.
Professor Mansing notes that many students enter university burdened by uneven schooling experiences, weak mathematical foundations, limited lab access, language barriers, and poor career counseling. This underscores the need for earlier intervention, starting in primary school, especially in grades 5 and 6, when attitudes toward mathematics, science, and career aspirations are formed.
Universities can provide practical support to schools by creating gap-filling programs, robotics camps, teacher development workshops, mentorship initiatives, and increasing lab access. Technology also offers innovative possibilities through virtual labs and online tutoring, but to mitigate existing inequalities, strengthening basic digital infrastructure is essential. It is critical for universities to collaborate with NGOs, research centers, and corporate foundations to expand reach into underserved communities and discover hidden talents, ensuring that South Africa's future competitiveness begins long before students apply.
Analysis of successful international models demonstrates encouraging strategies. Singapore built a robust STEM ecosystem through meticulous teacher development, consistent curriculum design, and a culture that prioritizes lifelong learning. Finland showcases the value of equality and teacher professionalism as drivers of educational excellence; their focus on inclusivity and student well-being effectively reduces disparities.
South Korea and Japan have made significant investments in science and technology education, establishing strong links between schools, universities, and industry. Germany's dual vocational training system offers an effective blend of technical training with industry needs, while Estonia has become a leader in digital education.
Closer to home, Rwanda prioritizes coding and digital literacy within its national development agenda. India demonstrates how low-cost STEM innovations can flourish in resource-constrained settings, and Kenya's investments in technical education highlight the importance of industry partnerships for developing practical skill acquisition pathways.
The essence of the STEM crisis in South Africa goes beyond simply graduating students; it requires building a sustainable and inclusive ecosystem. According to Professor Mansing, fundamental steps toward this goal include resolving entrenched inequality in school education, strengthening teacher training, and expanding access to STEM opportunities.
If universities, schools, industry, and communities can collaborate effectively to create seamless pathways from early learning to employment, South Africa can unlock its diverse talent pool, support neurodiverse students, and retain necessary skills, transforming its STEM trajectory into a catalyst for innovation, competitiveness, and sustainable growth for future generations.
Entrepreneurship is actively promoted in South Africa as a tool to stimulate economic growth, foster innovation, and create jobs. However, the country faces one of the world's most acute youth unemployment problems.
According to the Labour Force Survey for the first quarter of 2026 by Statistics SA, more than six out of ten South Africans aged 15 to 24 are unemployed. Despite various government measures aimed at supporting the economy and creating employment, the unemployment rate remains high, especially among young people entering the job market.
Against this backdrop, entrepreneurship education has significantly expanded. It is available in universities, Technical and Vocational Education and Training colleges (TVETs), private higher education institutions, Sector Education and Training Authorities (Setas), and government enterprise development initiatives. Nevertheless, an important question arises: does this education truly prepare sustainable entrepreneurs, or does it merely produce graduates who know theory?
Thousands of students annually take entrepreneurship-related programs, and institutions provide reports on attendance, course completion rates, and student satisfaction. However, much less attention is paid to whether these programs lead to actual business creation, job generation, and long-term success. This calls into question the methods of measuring and evaluating educational programs.
Over the last two decades, the approach to teaching entrepreneurship has undergone significant changes. Historically, programs focused on raising awareness about entrepreneurship, introducing business concepts, and developing entrepreneurial mindset. While these goals remain relevant, it is necessary to move beyond mere knowledge accumulation.
Research confirms that acquiring knowledge alone does not make someone an entrepreneur. It is critically important whether graduates establish enterprises, generate jobs, and contribute to economic outcomes, and whether the education received played a significant role in this process. This requires a completely different learning environment, distinct from the traditional lecture hall.
The main problem is that many programs continue to prioritize classroom learning. Students often gain a deep understanding of business plans, marketing strategies, financial forecasting, and opportunity recognition. However, many lack practical experience in launching and sustaining businesses in competitive markets, leading to a divergence between theoretical knowledge and practical activity.
International data shows that entrepreneurship education is most effective when integrated into broader entrepreneurial ecosystems. According to a study by Neka and Green (2011), entrepreneurship should be taught as a method, not just as a set of knowledge. This requires students to participate in experiments, opportunity identification, problem-solving, and project development in environments simulating real activities.
Successful entrepreneurial ecosystems typically combine formal education with mentorship, incubation, industry interaction, networking opportunities, and access to innovation infrastructure. These conditions allow aspiring entrepreneurs to test ideas, develop prototypes, receive expert feedback, and refine business models before market entry.
A study by Morris et al. (2013) demonstrates that experience-based approaches improve entrepreneurial competencies, including resilience, adaptability, innovation capacity, and opportunity recognition. This leads to a clear conclusion: entrepreneurship education alone is insufficient; the ecosystem surrounding the student plays a decisive role.
The entrepreneurial landscape in South Africa has its own characteristics. Entrepreneurs often face limited access to funding, regulatory barriers, infrastructure constraints, and complex market conditions. These realities demand that entrepreneurship education goes beyond teaching how to write business plans or understanding theory. Instead, institutions must create an environment where students can actively engage in innovation, enterprise development, and solving entrepreneurial challenges, transforming teaching from a subject into an activity.
Some higher education institutions are beginning to recognize the value of ecosystemic approaches that directly link academic learning with enterprise development. For instance, Regent Business School uses a comprehensive approach that combines innovation spaces, enterprise incubation, and industry engagement, providing students with direct exposure to business development realities.
The iLeadLAB innovation hub at this institution gives students access to practical problem-solving, design thinking, prototyping, and technology work. Students are encouraged to experiment, iterate, fail, learn, and improve, which closely mirrors the experience of practicing entrepreneurs. Thus, instead of studying innovation in theory, students engage in innovative practice.
This approach is complemented by structured business support: mentorship, incubation, and practical guidance that help students transition from intending to be entrepreneurs to taking action. Furthermore, industry interaction and professional networking events introduce students to employers and practitioners, shaping the commercial awareness and adaptability demanded by the labor market.
Despite positive changes, a serious problem persists: South Africa lacks a consistent system for assessing the outcomes of entrepreneurship education. Too often, program success is measured by participation statistics rather than actual entrepreneurial impact. While data on enrollment, attendance, and course completion is useful for administration, it says little about achieving stated goals.
A more meaningful assessment system should consider indicators such as: the rate of new business creation, business survival after two and five years, the number of jobs created by graduate-owned enterprises, revenue growth of supported companies, and access to financing and investment opportunities, as well as innovation output. Such metrics would allow policymakers, sponsors, and educational institutions to gain a clearer picture of which interventions genuinely promote entrepreneurship and economic growth.
South Africa needs more entrepreneurs, but it needs sustainable ones—those capable of building viable enterprises that create jobs and contribute to long-term economic development. Therefore, the future of entrepreneurship education must be evaluated not by the number of people who complete programs, but by the number who successfully launch, sustain, and grow their businesses. This requires a rethinking of the concept, teaching methods, and criteria for assessing entrepreneurship education.
There are encouraging signs that institutions are integrating experiential learning, entrepreneurial ecosystems, and business support into their curricula. The current task is to ensure these initiatives are accompanied by robust outcome measurement systems capable of demonstrating genuine entrepreneurial impact. Only then can South Africa determine whether its significant investments in entrepreneurship education yield entrepreneurs who create sustainable value or merely graduates who know theory.
According to a new study conducted by the Bureau for Economic Research (BER), South Africa will be unable to reduce its unemployment rate without implementing necessary structural transformations.
BER economists, Helanya Fury and Claire Bissaker, noted that only a quarter of the working-age adult population in South Africa is employed. They emphasized that while faster economic growth is an obvious solution, growth alone will not resolve the unemployment problem on the required scale unless corresponding reforms are introduced.
South Africa's unemployment rate has exceeded 20% since the early 1990s, which, according to the authors, is almost unprecedented for a country that has avoided wars or economic collapse. Decades of poor education for the majority of the population and an economic model increasingly dependent on capital and skills are among the reasons that have excluded a significant portion of the working-age population from the modern economy.
The report showed that accelerating growth does contribute to reducing unemployment. For instance, between 2001 and 2008, the economy grew at 3–5% annually, and the official unemployment rate fell from 30.3% to 22.5%. Nevertheless, even during this boom period, unemployment never dropped below 22%, as growth helped address cyclical issues but did not solve deep structural problems.
BER modeling demonstrates that with economic growth of 3%, 2.4 million jobs will be created by 2030, compared to 1.4 million if growth rates remain around 1%. However, considering that over eight million people are officially unemployed, even 3% growth will not fully eliminate the job deficit. Data from the Stats SA Labour Force Survey, published last week, reveals the picture of this problem.
A 15-year analysis revealed a clear division: most service sectors demonstrated strong growth in the previous decade and continued to create jobs, while secondary sectors, mainly mining and manufacturing, remained virtually static. The authors note that part of this is a natural evolution of mature economies, where activity shifts from factories and mines towards the service sector.
The report also drew attention to two worrying aspects for South Africa. Firstly, the mining industry, which could be a major source of employment, hired fewer people in the first quarter of 2026 than it did in early 2010, despite stable commodity prices. Secondly, even the service sectors that stimulated job creation until 2020 have added virtually no new jobs since the recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.
The slowdown in production is viewed as a prime example of systemic problems. Its decline is due to a combination of weak global demand, unreliable municipal services, and rising raw material costs due to disruptions in electricity grid infrastructure, ports, and railways. These factors, exacerbated by regulatory barriers, have undermined confidence and triggered a vicious cycle of low investment activity, low growth, and low employment.
These trends provide important context for the government's new Industrial Development Strategy. The strategy identifies key constraints, places accessible electricity and functioning ports and railways at the center of attention, promises to reduce bureaucracy through the 'Vulindlela' operation, and adopts the same 3% growth target. However, it also relies on chosen 'paths' and targeted incentives.
BER added that the 'Vulindlela' operation is gradually removing many economic obstacles hindering investment, which should strengthen the employment response to growth. It is emphasized, however, that structural reforms take time, and other measures can be implemented in parallel. Among these measures is the persistent issue of bureaucracy: regulatory hurdles increase compliance costs, can stifle entrepreneurship, and prevent companies from investing, expanding, and hiring staff. Much of these problems can be resolved with simple administrative action.
The report references the OECD's 2025 Economic Outlook, which notes that product market regulation in South Africa is one of the most restrictive among G20 and OECD countries. The organization calls on the government to make simplifying licenses and permits a national priority, pointing to the administrative burden on local firms.
In conclusion, the study concludes that stronger employment growth depends not only on long-term structural changes but also on reducing the daily obstacles that impede business and hiring. Since South Africa's starting point is very constrained, freeing up companies to operate can have a significant impact on growth, efficiency, and employment. Furthermore, small and informal enterprises, which should have the potential to absorb a large amount of labor, bear the greatest burden of poor infrastructure, bureaucracy, and weak service provision.
