"Minerals", "petroleum" and "operations" in the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 : a geologist as devil's advocate for a change? "

This article examines the meaning of "minerals", petroleum, "operations" and activities in relation to such substances to determine the ambit of the application of the Minerals and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002, the type of rights necessary for such operations and activities and the ambit of these rights. The examination of the meaning of these concepts takes place with reference to prior definitions in statutes and also from a natural science and geology perspective. An attempt is made to show that the legal definitions do no always correspond with the geological meanings and the meanings on the ground. It is questioned whether in recent legislation why more reliance is not placed on input from geologists in the field.

Artikel 3(1) en (2) van die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 van 2002: 'n herbeskouing

Sections 3(1) and 3(2) of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002
This contribution entails a discussion of the impact of section 3 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act on various aspects of the new mineral and petroleum law. At the core of the discussion is the question of how this section is interpreted by various commentators, and the implications of the different opinions on the application of the section. The initial discussion highlights problems with the new definition of a "mineral": Soil, including topsoil is at present included in die definition of a "mineral" in the act. The definition should be rectified by the legislature as it has far-reaching consequences in respect of the extent of the state's power in terms of section 3(2) of the act to grant entitlements in respect of minerals, including topsoil. The implications of section 3 for the control and management of minerals are discussed and placed in the context of the question about the constitutionality of the act. It is argued that legislative guidance is urgently needed to clarify continuing uncertainty, caused by sloppy drafting and different opinions about the connection between private law and public law in relation to minerals and the actual position of existing right holders.

Income inequality and human capital development

Investimentos em capital humano são essenciais para o desenvolvimento econômico de um pais. No Brasil, diversas fontes apontam para a falta de mão de obra qualificada como sendo uma das causas de um fraco crescimento econômico. Esta dissertação explora as teorias que ligam desigualdade de renda com performance econômica. A parte empírica se foca em uma das teorias apresentadas, a de imperfeições no mercado de credito. De acordo com esta teoria, mercados de credito imperfeitos são fracos alocadores de recursos e não possibilitam que indivíduos de baixa renda invistam no próprio capital humano. No Brasil, há uma escassez de estudos empíricos focados em testar os canais através dos quais a desigualdade de renda afeta o crescimento, trazendo significância para esta dissertação. Os resultados apresentados aqui foram obtidos através da pesquisa familiar – POF – realizada pelo IBGE. Os dados mostram que investimentos em educação crescem como percentual do orçamento com o aumento da renda familiar. Aumentos de renda para classes de renda já elevadas não provocam igual aumento nas despesas educacionais. Os dados sugerem a existência de uma restrição orçamentária para Brasileiros de baixa e média renda independente da região. Foram encontradas fortes evidencias de que classes de baixa e média renda no Brasil tem acesso limitado ao mercado de credito. Portanto, existe evidencia de que redistribuição aumentaria o gasto agregado em educação