Abstract

This study assesses the economic impacts of South Africa’s potential exclusion from AGOA and the imposition of MFN tariffs. Using the GTAP model, the analysis shows uneven effects. South Africa’s welfare declined by $20.8 million, with the agricultural sector, particularly vegetables, fruits, and nuts, with a shock response of 1.316% output decrease and a $61.81 million trade balance reduction. The USA faces a smaller welfare loss of $10.28 million, while regions such as Africa and the Americas respond to a shock with minimal gains due to trade diversion. The model highlights key risks such as reduced labour demand in agriculture, exacerbating unemployment, and lower capital investment in vulnerable sectors. To mitigate these impacts, South Africa must diversify export markets, invest in infrastructure (e.g., ports, roads, biosecurity), and enhance sectoral competitiveness through value addition. Collaboration between government, industry, and farmers, aligned with the Agriculture and Agro-processing Master Plan (AAMP), is critical.

1.    Introduction

The Republic of South Africa (RSA) and the United States of America (USA) have maintained strong trade relations over time. The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) is crucial in facilitating exports from RSA to the USA by providing preferential access for qualifying Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries, including South Africa. Building upon the USA’s Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), AGOA expands product coverage, allowing duty-free exports for approximately 6,800 tariff lines. This preferential trade framework has been instrumental in supporting South Africa’s economic growth, particularly in key sectors such as (i) automotive, (ii) manufacturing, (iii) agriculture, and (iv) textiles (Ramkolowan, 2023). Figure 1 depicts South Africa’s exports to the USA under AGOA and other (GSP and non-preferential access) from 2000 to 2024. The implication is that South Africa has not fully exploited the AGOA benefits. However, South Africa’s exports to the USA have generally increased, peaking in 2021. Key fluctuations, such as the decline in 2009, may be attributed to the 2008 financial crisis. The recent decline from 2023 to 2024 suggests global supply chain disruptions due to geopolitics, climate change and protectionist posture.

Figure 1:    South Africa’s exports to the USA under AGOA and other (GSP and non-preferential access)

Source:   ITC (2025)

2.1    AGOA eligibility

The eligibility criteria for beneficiary countries are determined by the USA unilaterally. Recently, the eligibility of countries has been cast in the spotlight with the introduction of AGOA renewal allowance to conduct exceptional reviews to determine whether beneficiary countries may continue to be AGOA eligible. AGOA’s eligibility requirements indicate that beneficiary countries must establish or make continual progress towards establishing a market-based economy, the rule of law, political pluralism, and the right to due process. Additionally, countries must eliminate barriers to USA trade and investment, enact policies to reduce poverty, combat corruption, and protect human rights. Human rights provisions are a fundamental compliance requirement for AGOA eligibility. Any perceived violations risk ineligibility. SSA countries may be ineligible for AGOA benefits should they no longer meet the eligibility (OUSTR, 2025 ).

Over the years, several countries were determined as ineligible and excluded from AGOA benefits. More recently, Ethiopia, Mali, and Guinea were excluded in 2022 due to political instability and human rights concerns. The USA conducts periodic assessments on compliance with AGOA eligibility. Countries may be reinstated should they meet the required conditions. Thirty-two (32) SSA nations have been identified as AGOA beneficiaries as of 2024, as presented in Table 1. After being passed for 24 years, the law has been renewed several times, most recently in June 2020, extending its validity to 2025 (USITC, 2023).

Table 1:    AGOA eligible and ineligible countries 2024

Source:    Office of the United States Trade Representative (OUSTR, 2025 )

With AGOA set to expire in September 2025, there is growing uncertainty about the potential exclusion of South Africa. The loss of AGOA preferential access will likely adversely affect RSA exports to the USA, as they would then be subject to Most Favoured Nations (MFN) tariff rates. This would reduce competition for South African products in the US markets. The discussion document examines the economy-wide effect of excluding RSA from the AGOA preferential access. Upon which the most traded agricultural exports such as beverages, tobacco, sugar, fruits and vegetables are likely to be subjected to general duty rates.

3.    Literature review

3.1    Significance of AGOA

The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) was signed into law by President Clinton on May 18, 2000, as part of the USA Trade and Development Act of 2000. AGOA was billed as a historical turning point in the USA and African trade relations. Since then, AGOA has been the centrepiece of USA trade with Sub-Saharan Africa. The legislation provides preferential treatment of exports from Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) through duty-free and largely quota-free access to USA markets (Mafu, 2016). It is a nonreciprocal trade preference program for specific goods from SSA nations, of which South Africa is a member (Nyhodo et al., 2016). AGOA is comparable to the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP), a USA trade preference program covering more than 120 developing nations regarding tariff benefits and general qualifying requirements. However, AGOA offers more eligibility and covers a broader range of product requirements beyond GSP.

Beyond its duty-quota-free preferences, AGOA has provisions for industrial development. Through, amongst others, (i) political integrity: the eligibility criteria of AGOA advocates for democracy and the rule of law by beneficiary countries. AGOA eligibility may support domestic reforms and promote peace and stability (Shapouri & Trueblood, 2003). Respect for governance and law institutions is among the qualifying criteria. (ii) economic development and competitiveness: enhanced trade performance presents immediate and long-term opportunities to increase economic efficiency and revenues (Shapouri &Trueblood, 2003). (iii) Social development: the AGOA seeks to boost the economies of the participating nations by removing import taxes on more than 1800 goods, such as clothing, footwear, textiles, minerals, processed agricultural products, and auto parts (Tadesse, 2024). Consequently, an increase in foreign exchange earnings will likely be reinvested in education, health and social care. (iv) Technology: AGOA can support Africa’s digital transformation by promoting digital trade, strengthening partnerships, and investing in digital infrastructure. (v) environment: AGOA promotes sustainable development and investments in cleaner technologies. However, risks such as resource extraction and environmental degradation require safeguards. Essentially, the goals of AGOA are to support the free market, increase trade and investment between the USA and Africa, spur economic progress, and aid SSA’s integration into the global economy (DALRRD, 2019).

3.2    Trade under AGOA

South Africa’s trade with the USA has expanded significantly over the years. South Africa is the biggest exporter per AGOA in terms of Gross Value Added (GVA). Figure 2 depicts the GVA per country over the last 7-years. According to data from the International Trade Centre, the United Nations Conference on Trade & Development, and the World Trade Organisation, the USA imported R558.0 billion, or USD30.4 billion, of African products in 2024 through AGOA. South Africa contributed 49% (R273.2 billion), nearly half the total exports. Nigeria (19%), Angola (6%), Ghana (4%), Côte d’Ivoire (3%), Kenya (2%), Madagascar (2%), and Ethiopia (2%), followed by these countries.

Figure 2:    Top 10 African countries benefiting from the AGOA (in value Rand)

Source:    (2025)

For several AGOA nations, clothing is the most popular export among non-energy goods (USITC, 2023). Despite being subject to relatively high tariffs and not being eligible for duty-free treatment under the GSP, USA garment imports are included in the AGOA preferences, which gives AGOA nations a competitive edge over other clothing manufacturers (Williams, 2015). Fewer nations, notably Kenya, Mauritius, and Lesotho, heavily utilize the advantages of clothing. Significant imports into the USA under AGOA are from South Africa, excluding clothing and energy products. In addition to exporting a far wider variety of manufactured goods than other AGOA nations, South Africa is the most economically developed nation in the region. Automobiles are a significant export under AGOA (Williams, 2015).

3.3    South Africa’s agricultural exports to the USA

The benefits of the agricultural sector to the AGOA’s preferential trade terms are depicted in Figure 3. Based on the preliminary data projections from the trade map, South Africa’s agricultural exports to the USA have steadily grown. The USA market accounts for about 4% or R9.8 billion of South Africa’s total agricultural exports valued at R251 billion. Moreover, South Africa’s agricultural exports to the USA increased by 104% between 2018 and 2024, from R4.8 billion to R9.8 billion, with an average annual growth of 13.9%.

Figure 3:    South Africa’s agricultural exports to the United States

Source:  ITC (2025)

In contrast, leading agricultural imports into South Africa from the USA included poultry, accounting for 28% of South Africa’s total poultry imports in 2023, almonds (95%), whiskies (11%), cattle livers (57%), grain sorghum (33%), and maize seed (29%) to name a few.

When trade between South Africa and the USA is viewed through the lens of total agricultural exports, the impact of excluding South Africa from AGOA is minimal. However, the additional tariff cost resulting from the loss of AGOA benefits is significant in terms of foreign exchange earnings, loss of export share, and adverse impact on downstream and related industries. A minimal decline in economic activity due to losing AGOA benefits should be a cause of concern, especially in an increasingly uncertain and unstable global trading environment.

3.4    South Africa’s agricultural export products to the USA

The products that have benefited the most from the AGOA during the previous decade are shown in Figure 4. Agricultural items that profited the most from the AGOA throughout the observation period include macadamia, oranges, mandarins, wine, ice cream, raisins (dried grapes), apple juice, sugar, grapes, and alcohol.

Figure 4:  Products benefiting through exports from the AGOA

Source: ITC (2025)

Over the last five years, the average value of exports of oranges, mandarins, and macadamias to the USA was R1.0 billion, R553.3 million, and R434.6 million, respectively. Amongst the major agricultural exports to the USA in 2023, products like oranges accounted for at least 8% of all the oranges that South Africa exported to the rest of the world. Similarly, apple juice was 68%, whilst ice cream at 62%, then macadamia nuts at 27%, peaches and grapefruit juice at 16%, whilst dried grapes were 18%, mandarins were 11%, wine at 8%, and sugar on 9%. Provinces such as the Western Cape, which is considered the hub of fruit production, are likely to be the hardest hit should South Africa be excluded from AGOA.

3.5    Agricultural exports to the USA by province

Figure 5 below depicts agricultural exports from South Africa to the USA by respective provinces from 2018 to 2022. Regarding value, 49% of South Africa’s total agricultural exports to the USA between 2018 and 2022 came from the Western Cape. In 2022, the Western Cape province exported R4.70 billion worth of agricultural goods to the USA, which made up 54% of all South Africa’s agricultural exports to the USA.

Figure 5:    South Africa’s agricultural exports by province (%share)

Source: Quantec (2023)

Mpumalanga was the second largest beneficiary by province (R 127 billion), followed by Gauteng (R894 million), Eastern Cape (R593 million), and KwaZulu Natal (R549 million) in 2022. Other provinces had a small share of their products exported to the USA, with the North West the least beneficiary. The effects of excluding South Africa from AGOA are further analysed through provincial impact. South Africa will likely face higher tariffs for agricultural exports to the USA due to the loss of AGOA benefits. The effect of the tariffs by the USA on South Africa’s agricultural products is estimated to have a varying impact on respective provinces. The Western Cape is likely to be hardest hit.

4.    Methodology to quantify the effects of exclusion from AGOA

4.1    The Model – Standard GTAP model summarised

Several methods can be employed when studying economy-wide impacts relating to trade policy shifts, each with strengths and limitations. Input-output (IO) models are useful for analysing sectoral linkages but lack flexibility in capturing price changes or behavioural responses (van Leeuwen et al., 2005). Partial equilibrium (PE) models focus on specific markets but ignore spillover effects on the broader economy (Latta et al., 2013). Macroeconomic models, such as Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE), capture aggregate economic dynamics but are less suited for detailed sectoral or trade-specific analysis (De Grauwe, 2010). These econometric models are limited in simulating counterfactual scenarios.

In contrast, the Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP) model is specifically designed for trade policy analysis (Hertel, 1997), offering a multi-region, multi-sector framework that captures the interconnectedness of economies and sectors. Its comprehensive database, flexibility in aggregation, and ability to simulate policy shocks make it particularly well-suited for analysing the economy-wide impacts of trade policies such as AGOA. The five factors included in the GTAP database are land, natural resources, unskilled labour, skilled labour, and capital. These are left disaggregated in this example. As per the GTAP model, land and natural resources are assumed to be immobile between sectors, but unskilled labour, skilled labour, and capital are perfectly mobile.

The GTAP model has several strengths, including its ability to provide comprehensive, economy-wide analysis across all sectors, its accessibility compared to other CGE models, and its well-documented, peer-reviewed database and software suite, which ensures transparency and reproducibility. However, it also faces limitations, such as reliance on data availability, the complexity of estimating and validating numerous parameters, and assumptions that may not fully reflect real-world complexities. Despite these limitations, GTAP remains a widely used and valuable tool for trade policy analysis.

The GTAP database covers bilateral trade data, production structure, consumption, and intermediate usage of commodities characteristic of economic linkages between or within a region/country. The regional economic activity is presented through input-output tables. This study uses GTAP database version 10A with 2014 as the base year. The database has 113 regions and 57 commodities aggregated into 12 commodities and eight regions. It is important to note that a detailed description of GTAP database version 7 is found in Narayanan and Walmsley (2008). In the same light, a detailed description of the history (evolution) and mechanics of the GTAP model is presented by Hertel (1997). Commodities in the social accounting matrix (SAM) are vegetables, fruits and nuts; grains and crops; livestock and meat products; sugar; beverages and tobacco; processed food; mining and extraction; textile and clothing; manufacturing; utilities, transport and construction; and other services. The regions are South Africa, the United States of America, Africa, the European Union, BRIC, Asia, the Americas, and the rest of the world.

4.2    Policy shock or simulation

This study simulated the complete erosion of preferential access granted to South Africa under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) for its most traded agricultural products. Specifically, the analysis focuses on key products that dominate bilateral trade between South Africa and the United States, including horticultural products (vegetables, fruits, and nuts, as classified under the GTAP concordance), sugar, and wines (categorized under beverages and tobacco in the GTAP framework). To operationalize the policy shock within the GTAP model, the broader GTAP concordance categories for vegetables, fruits, nuts, beverages, and tobacco were subjected to the shock, as these categories encompass most of the bilaterally traded products identified in the study.

The policy shock assumes the application of Most Favored Nation (MFN) tariffs by the United States on imports of these products from South Africa, effectively removing the duty-free benefits provided under AGOA. The MFN tariffs in the simulation are based on the standard rates imposed by the United States on imports from non-AGOA countries. Tariffs are taxes on imports typically used to protect domestic industries and generate revenue but carry significant economic consequences. When raised, they increase import costs, reducing trade volumes and potentially triggering retaliatory measures, while domestic industries may gain short-term protection at the expense of long-term inefficiency. Consumers face higher prices and fewer choices, and while governments may initially gain revenue, this can cause a decline in imports. Broader impacts include supply chain disruptions, inflation, and economic welfare losses due to higher costs and reduced efficiency. Table 2 summarizes the policy shock, detailing the specific tariff rates applied to each product category.

Table 2:    Summary of Policy Shock (MFN Tariffs Applied by the USA on Imports from South Africa)

These tariff rates reflect the increased trade costs that South African exporters would face in the US market without AGOA preferences. Simulating the removal of AGOA benefits and the imposition of MFN tariffs allows us to capture the potential economic repercussions for South Africa’s agricultural sector and the broader economy. This approach allows for a comprehensive assessment of the economy-wide effects of losing preferential access to the US market, providing valuable insights for policymakers and stakeholders.

5.    Results from GTAP model output
5.1    Equivalence variation

The GTAP model results in Table 3 show significant welfare impacts from imposing MFN tariffs on South Africa’s agricultural exports to the US. The equivalent variation (EV) metric represents the amount of money that would need to be given to or taken from households in a region to make them as well off as they would be after the policy change. A negative EV indicates a welfare loss, while a positive EV indicates a welfare gain. This is used as a measure of a policy’s overall economic welfare impacts. Implementing Most Favoured Nations (MFN) rates to South Africa’s agricultural most traded items with the United States will likely result in a $20.8 million decline in South Africa’s welfare, suggesting reliance on preferential access under AGOA.

The United States also faces a welfare decline of $10.28 million, driven by higher costs for consumers and businesses reliant on South African imports. However, the impact is minimal relative to the size of the US economy. All other regional accounts are predicted to lose money, except for Africa (0.33 million or $330,000), the Americas ($10 million), and the United Kingdom ($1.68 million). These findings highlight the risks of protectionist policies and the need for South Africa to diversify export markets and enhance competitiveness to mitigate the economic impact of losing preferential trade access.

Table 3:    Welfare Effect (aggregated) of the policy change (in millions of dollars)

Source:    GTAP output, 2025

5.2    Quantity of output (QO)

Table 4 presents the percentage changes in output quantity for various sectors in South Africa resulting from the exclusion of AGOA benefits and the imposition of Most Favored Nation (MFN) tariffs by the USA. The agricultural sector, particularly vegetables, fruits, and nuts, absorb the highest impact of policy shock, with a 1.316% decline in output. Similarly, sugar, beverages, and tobacco respond to policy shock by output declines of 0.038% and 0.270%, respectively. In contrast, sectors such as grains and crops, meat and livestock, and manufacturing respond with minimal output growth. Similarly, the 0.047% growth in manufacturing suggests that some resources might redirected to this sector. The minimal changes in sectors such as extraction, utilities, and services indicate that these industries are less directly affected by the policy shock. However, the overall economic impact of the AGOA exclusion extends beyond individual sectors, as reduced export earnings and lower output in key industries can have ripple effects on employment, investment, and economic growth.

Table 4:    Effects of the policy change on industry output (in % change)

Source:    GTAP output, 2025

5.3    Analysis of Effects on Factors of Production

The exclusion of South Africa from AGOA benefits and the imposition of MFN tariffs by the USA significantly impact factor demand across sectors, as shown in Table 5. The agricultural subsector, particularly vegetables, fruits, and nuts, experiences the most significant declines, with land demand declining by 0.864% and skilled and unskilled labour demand dropping by 1.389%. In contrast, subsectors such as grains and crops see a 0.365% increase in land demand, while manufacturing and textiles respond slightly in labour and capital demand, suggesting resource reallocation. The decline in labour demand, especially in agriculture, exacerbates South Africa’s unemployment challenges, while reduced capital demand in key sectors may hinder long-term growth. These findings highlight the need for policies to support job creation, investment, and export diversification to mitigate the adverse effects of losing AGOA benefits and ensure economic resilience.

Table 5:    Effects of the policy change on demand (quantity) for factor endowment (%)

Source:    GTAP output, 2025

5.4    Trade balance

Table 6 represents the effects of the policy change on South Africa’s trade balance, showing significant but uneven impacts across sectors due to the exclusion from AGOA benefits and the imposition of MFN tariffs by the USA. The trade balance for vegetables, fruits, and nuts responded to the shock with a $61.8 million reduction. In comparison, beverages and tobacco responded to a shock with a decrease of $32.2 million, suggesting a loss of export competitiveness due to higher tariffs. On the other hand, sectors such as grains and crops and manufacturing responded positively, with an increase of $ 4.61 million and $89.18 million, respectively. The extraction sector was an exception, responding with a $5.78 million reduction in its trade balance.

Table 6:    Effects of the policy change on trade balance (in million USD)

Source:    GTAP Output, 2025

5.5    Discussion of the findings

GTAP model results provide a comprehensive assessment of the economic impacts of South Africa’s potential exclusion from AGOA benefits and the imposition of MFN tariffs by the USA. The significant decline in welfare and output in South Africa, particularly in the agricultural sector, suggests the vulnerability of economies heavily reliant on preferential trade agreements such as AGOA. This finding is consistent with studies such Boer and Rieth (2024), which quantify the impact of a loss of South Africa’s AGOA benefits. They find that the direct effect on South Africa’s GDP would be small (a decline of 0.06%). Still, specific sectors, such as food and beverages and transport equipment, would face significant export losses (16% and 13%, respectively). Similarly, Nyhodo et al. (2016) estimate that the termination of AGOA preferential access would result in a $3.11 million welfare loss for South Africa, driven primarily by trade and allocative efficiency declines. The $20.8 million welfare loss for South Africa and the 1.316% decline in output for vegetables, fruits, and nuts in our study further demonstrate how dependent sectors can suffer disproportionately when trade preferences are withdrawn. This aligns with global evidence that preferential trade agreements, while beneficial in the short term, can create long-term vulnerabilities if not complemented by diversification strategies.

The welfare losses in the US ($10.28 million) and other regions, such as Asia and the EU, highlight the interconnectedness of global trade and the potential for spillover effects from protectionist policies. This finding resonates with studies such as Edwards and Lawrence (2008), which emphasize how trade policy shocks in one region can disrupt global supply chains and affect multiple economies. The minimal welfare gains in Africa ($3.18 million) and the Americas ($10.09 million) further illustrate how trade diversion can benefit some regions while harming others, reinforcing the need for coordinated global trade policies.

The positive responses in sectors such as manufacturing and textiles, with output growth of 0.047% and 0.027%, respectively, suggest that resource reallocation can partially mitigate the adverse effects of trade shocks. This finding is supported by studies such as Esposito (2022), which explores how firms diversify demand risk through international trade. They highlight that risk-averse entrepreneurs exploit spatial correlations in demand across countries to reduce the variance of global sales, leading to higher welfare gains from trade. However, the limited growth in these sectors indicates that reallocation alone is insufficient to offset the losses in agriculture, underscoring the need for targeted policies to support vulnerable sectors.

The decline in labour demand, particularly in agriculture (1.389% for skilled and unskilled labour), exacerbates South Africa’s already high unemployment rate, especially in rural areas. This aligns with findings from Ramakgasha et al. (2024) and Vink and Kirsten (1999), highlighting the social and economic challenges posed by job losses in labour-intensive sectors. The policy shock affects economic output and has broader implications for poverty, inequality, and social stability, emphasizing the need for policies that address both economic and social dimensions.

The trade balance results reveal significant declines in key agricultural exports, such as vegetables, fruits, and nuts ($61.81 million reduction) and beverages and tobacco ($32.21 million reduction), reflecting the loss of export competitiveness due to higher tariffs. This finding is consistent with studies such as Albornoz et al. (2021), which argue that tariff hikes can erode export competitiveness. The positive trade balance responses in sectors such as manufacturing ($89.18 million improvement) suggest that diversification into higher-value-added sectors can enhance resilience, but this requires significant investment and policy support.

5.6    Strategic considerations

The GTAP model results highlight the need for a strategic response to mitigate the risks of losing AGOA benefits. South Africa should diversify its trading partners while maintaining existing markets. Simultaneously, investments in infrastructure such as port efficiency, roads, rail, and biosecurity measures such as the Livestock Identification and Traceability System (LITS) are crucial to enhance export competitiveness. Strengthening domestic industries through value addition, technology, and skills development will reinforce resilience in key sectors. Collaboration between government, industry stakeholders, and farmers is essential to implement these strategies effectively. Aligning with the Agriculture and Agro-processing Master Plan (AAMP), policymakers should focus on trade policy adjustments, investment incentives, and risk mitigation measures.

5.     References:

Albornoz, F., Brambilla, I., & Ornelas, E. (2021). Firm export responses to tariff hikes.

Boer, L., & Rieth, M. (2024). The macroeconomic consequences of import tariffs and trade policy uncertainty. International Monetary Fund.

DALRRD. (2019). African Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA). https://www.dalrrd.gov.za/images/Branches/Economica%20Development%20Trade%20and%20Marketing/international-trade-and-promotions/trade-agreements/summary-of-trade-agreements/african-growth-opportunity-act-agoa.pdf

De Grauwe, P. (2010). The scientific foundation of dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) models. Public choice, 144, 413-443.

Edwards, L., & Lawrence, R. (2008). South African trade policy matters trade performance and trade policy. Economics of Transition, 16(4), 585-608.

Esposito, F. (2022). Demand risk and diversification through international trade. Journal of International Economics, 135, 103562. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinteco.2021.103562

Hertel, T. W. (1997). Global trade analysis: modeling and applications. Cambridge university press.

ITC. (2025). Trade statistics for international business development
Monthly, quarterly and yearly trade data. Import & export values, volumes, growth rates, market shares, etc. https://www.trademap.org/Index.aspx
Latta, G. S., Sjølie, H. K., & Solberg, B. (2013). A review of recent developments and applications of partial equilibrium models of the forest sector. Journal of Forest Economics, 19(4), 350-360.

Mafu, M. (2016). Has South Africa Been Handed a Poisoned Chalice? Assessing the Legal Implications of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) for South Africa’s Trade Policy University of Pretoria (South Africa)].

Narayanan, B. G., & Walmsley, T. L. (2008). Global trade, assistance, and production: the GTAP 7 data base. Center for global trade analysis, Purdue University, 134.

Nyhodo, B., Ntshangase, T., & Ngqangweni, S. (2016). Economy wide effects of a possible erosion of AGOA preferential access for South Africa.
OUSTR. (2025 ). African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). https://ustr.gov/issue-areas/trade-development/preference-programs/african-growth-and-opportunity-act-agoa

Quantec. (2023). South Africa Economic Indicators https://www.quantec.co.za/post/4710/south-africa-economic-indicators-march-2023/

Ramakgasha, M. J., Thaba, T. K., & Rudzani, N. (2024). Agricultural production and agricultural employment rate in South Africa: Time series analysis approach. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 14(4), 148-153.

Ramkolowan, G. B. a. Y. (2023). South Africa’s reliance on preferential access to the US market and the potential impact of an AGOA exit. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/south-africas-reliance-on-preferential-access-to-the-us-market-and-the-potential-impact-of-an-agoa-exit/
Shapouri, S., & Trueblood, M. (2003). The African growth and opportunity act (AGOA): Does it really present opportunities. International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium (IATRC) Conference, Capri, Italy,
van Leeuwen, E. S., Nijkamp, P., & Rietveld, P. (2005). Regional Input–Output Analysis. In K. Kempf-Leonard (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Social Measurement (pp. 317-323). Elsevier. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-369398-5/00349-2

Vink, N., & Kirsten, J. F. (1999). A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYMENT TRENDS IN SOUTH AFRICAN AGRICULTURE / ‘N BESKRYWENDE ANALISE VAN TENDENSE IN INDIENSNAME IN DIE SUID-AFRIKAANSE LANDBOU. Agrekon, 38(2), 204-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/03031853.1999.9523550

Disclaimer:

Information contained in this document results from research funded wholly or in part by the NAMC acting in good faith. Opinions, attitudes and points of view expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the NAMC. The NAMC makes no claims, promises, or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the contents of this document and expressly disclaims liability for errors and omissions regarding the content thereof. No warranty of any kind, implied, expressed, or statutory, including but not limited to the warranties of non-infringement of third-party rights, title, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose or freedom from computer virus is given with respect to the contents of this document in hardcopy, electronic format or electronic links thereto. Reference made to any specific product, process, and service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or another commercial commodity or entity are for informational purposes only and do not constitute or imply approval, endorsement or favouring by the NAMC.