ARTICLE 21
Why Grow Zambia Agenda may not be the answer and could be doomed to fail
GROW Zambia Agenda has been touted as the antidote to our underdevelopment. However, it has not been subjected to rigorous scrutiny. Instead, it has been all praise. Is Grow Zambia Agenda then the answer it is claimed to be?
Economic growth isn’t new and Grow Zambia Agenda remains a slogan
The aspiration to grow the economy has always existed, what is new is the packaging, if not the hype. If anything, it’s not clear what happens to our lives once the targets are met. Do we end poverty, for example?
Moreover, Grow Zambia Agenda remains nothing more than a slogan. As Secretary to the Treasury Felix Nkulukusa disclosed and Finance Minister Musokotwane acknowledged, a national plan is yet to be developed. The 2027 budget ‘would be implemented alongside preparation of the Ninth National Development Plan which would guide Zambia’s development priorities over the next five years’, Nkulukusa told a 2027 budget preparatory meeting (Mast Newspaper, 6 October 2026). We therefore don’t even know how much it will cost and be funded. At best, it remains a party and not a government programme.
A top-down agenda lacking implementers
The delay in appointing Cabinet implies that ministers who should own and champion the agenda, were not involved in its preparation – it is therefore imposed on them. Besides, they had little or no say in the preparation of the 2027 budget and consequently next year’s allocation. Questions can also be asked about the suitability of some ministers themselves.
Aside the imposition, suitability concerns and inordinate delay in the appointment of ministers – suggestive of them not being that important after all, civil servants – the main implementers, are also not only yet to provide input but are threatened with dismissal. With threats of ‘retirement in the national interest, it’s hard to see civil servants giving professional advise they know will not sit well with the leadership. In any event, even the business sector is yet to be reformed. During his recent visit to Dubai, President Hichilema said his administration would be reforming laws that hindered businesses.
Founded on a flawed premise and fails to respond to our challenges
Grow Zambia Agenda perpetuates the failed trickle-down policy and export of raw materials. According to Professor Lubinda Haabazoka, it sets ‘ambitious production targets’ (Article entitled Zambia and the UAE: Turning President Hichilema’s visit into Growth at Home under the Grow Zambia Agenda, Daily Nation Newspaper 30 September). Accordingly, we are merely increasing quantity, no paradigm shift. What economic model are we then pursuing and where has it worked? And what becomes of the 2030 Vision of becoming a middle income country by 2030?
If anything, we have set the bar too low. Why not aspire to be a manufacturing hub than ramping up raw materials? Industrialisation, apparently, is a byproduct of the ‘production targets’. Professor Haabazoka surmises, for example, that local content requirements in mining could create a path for Zambian firms to compete for sophisticated work like fabrication and maintenance. But while laudable, local content isn’t about value addition but benefiting from mining.
The fundamental question is whether we should be aiming for raw products or moving up the value chain and thereby creating demand for the raw products. Exporting more raw products amounts to doing the same thing but expecting different results and exporting more jobs. Our biggest challenges, economically, are jobs and income inequality leading to poverty – rooted in reliance on copper for export earnings and maize for sustainance. We ought therefore to be diversifying away from maize and raw copper – adding value to them.
Besides, are we getting our fair share from copper? We need to know what share of the proceeds of the three million tonnes we would be getting before depleting our copper. And what happens to the 10 and three million tonnes of maize and soya beans without processing facilities? A lot of produce already goes to waste. Agro-processing and finding markets are therefore key to unlocking agriculture.
Austerity and donor dependance
While intentions to maximise internal resource mobilisation are welcome, it’s concerning that despite copper prices being at their peak, there are no plans to benefit from supper profits being made and we remain donor dependent – relying on IMF support with its austerity measures. Austerity, as Grieve Chelwa and Vijay Prashad demonstrate in How the International Monetary Fund Stangles Africa, is anti-growth. Economics Nobel Lauret Joseph Stiglitz equally notes that austerity has almost never worked.
Already, fuel duty was reinstated at the beginning of October, coinciding with an IMF mission at the end of September. And why embark on a borrowing spree and entering into agreements on terms we can’t disclose, if we have entered the era of growth?
We need a comprehensive programme that also addresses governance
Going by President Hichilema’s address to parliament, Grow Zambia Agenda transcends economics – it’s supposedly a blue print for the country’s development; but only has economic targets. There is more to being human than food and jobs. Moreover, as Dambisa Moyo notes in Edge of Chaos – Why democracy is failing to deliver – and how to fix it, apart from capital and labour, economic growth is a function of ‘total factor productivity’ – covering all other factors that affect economic growth including political systems and governance.
After reviewing Japan, China, Argentina, the United States and Europe, Dambisa concludes that political stability and credible institutions, including strong parliaments, were key in their economic development and notes that, without a reliable civil service, police and judiciary, poor economic outcomes are almost inevitable. Economic and political decisions, she adds, are the primary drivers of economic success and further notes that, whereas China’s political institutions may not be completely transparent or democratic, its political system and institutions are strong.
We undoutedly have weak institutions. Crucially, we also have a post-election crisis that the leadership nonetheless denies while calls to remove presidential term limits are distracting. And more importantly, we have regressed democracy wise. Yet, there’s no indication to deal with these ailments.
We are not China with a huge market or DR Congo with rare resources that attract investors notwithstanding concerns about democracy, rule of law, respect for human rights or political stability. Our comparative advantage includes being a relatively stable democracy. China, if anything, pursues a socialist market economy with ‘chinese characteristics’ that include ‘state capitalism’ whereby the state steers economic activity.
Equally critical is that local investors can’t invest amidst fear and uncertainty. But if locals lack confidence in the local economy, how can foreigners invest? And if locals don’t invest, what stake do they then have in the economy? We therefore need a comprehensive programme that also addresses governance and social concerns. Production targets alone are insufficient to spar the development we need. In particular, corruption, theft of public resources, income inequality and dictatorship can undermine growth.
Is it growth or still stabilisation?
The question ultimately is whether we have entered an era of growth or we are still stabilising the economy. If we are growing, it will show!
The author is a lawyer and a citizen who wants the best for our country.
For comments and feedback: chris.mapani@gmail .com
