Beyond blame games : Unpacking the World Bank’s Zambia poverty paradox
By Cleopas Sambo
FOLLOWING the publication of the World Bank’s report on poverty in Zambia, social media has been awash with commentary. One troubling narrative circulating is political finger-pointing, particularly the claim that the poverty highlighted in the World Bank report is solely the fault of the Patriotic Front (PF) government because it is themed ‘turning things around after a lost decade’. This is an oversimplification that is as misleading as it is disingenuous, and it is concerning to see even senior members of the United Party for National Development (UPND) government echoing this sentiment. It is important to recognize that Zambia’s poverty is not a transient issue. While the PF must be held accountable for their 10 years in power and their failure to effectively address poverty, the roots of this issue go much deeper. These roots lie in the structural foundations of the economy, and in recent history, in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) inspired structural adjustment type policies implemented during the Movement for Multi-Party Democracy (MMD) era. Ironically, some of the current government’s key members were part of that same period and, therefore, must also shoulder some responsibility.
To move forward, it is necessary to acknowledge and address the continuities in the ineptitude of successive governments including in their inability to address both state and private sector corruption. Acknowledging these challenges, rather than simply blaming one administration, will offer a more productive path toward changing the nation’s trajectory. Below, I explore the paradox of Zambia’s poverty considering the World Bank’s analysis through three key reasons:
Poor conceptual understanding, measurement, and policy
Poverty is complicated. While experts debate its meaning, the public often assumes they understand it. During my doctoral studies, whenever I would say, I am studying relational dimensions of poverty, I was frequently asked, “How do you define poverty?” Instead of answering directly, I’d ask for their definition. Many would begin by dismissing the World Bank’s $1.90 a day benchmark at the time as inadequate, adding, “Some poor people have money.” When I pointed out that this is a measure, not a definition, they would quickly shift to another unrelated point.
To clarify, there is a difference among the concepts, definitions, and measures of poverty. The World Bank’s current threshold of living on less than $2.15 a day is not a definition. It is a measure! In contrast, poverty scholars have articulated a definition of poverty that encompasses the lack of resources necessary to lead a life deemed acceptable within one’s society. This definition highlights the denial of choices, opportunities, and resources essential for a dignified existence. Here, therefore, could decide what is necessary to maintain a decent standard of living in Zambia? Then we would proceed to establish a benchmark based on this threshold. If you are planning initiatives to address poverty, you must understand this distinction. It is a foundational concept that informs effective strategies for intervention. This distinction between concepts, definitions, and measures is crucial for designing effective anti-poverty initiatives. It is not merely technical but deeply political; shaping what evidence is considered valid, how resources are allocated, and ultimately, the extent of intervention. A narrow definition minimizes obligations and creates the illusion of progress, revealing the inescapable link between poverty and politics.
The definition of poverty extends beyond income, encompassing resources like clean water, adequate clothing, food security, healthcare, decent housing, and education; essentials for a dignified life. It reflects a societal standard, not just the mere requirements for physical survival.
If you are constantly on the edge, wrestling with starvation or living salale to salale, where missing just one salale could push you into financial ruin; making rent, food, and school fees unattainable; you are undeniably experiencing poverty. Likewise, if your citente leaves you feeling self-conscious due to inadequate clothing, poverty shapes not only your material conditions but also your sense of belonging. Here, poverty’s causes often become its consequences—what is known as multidimensional poverty.
The debate over concepts, definitions, and measures matters because it determines whether we are accurately identifying poverty. Zambia’s primary evidence comes from the Living Conditions Monitoring Survey (LCMS) by the Zambia Statistics Agency. Though it claims a multidimensional approach, its definition remains consumption based and income centric; measuring poverty by whether a person’s income can secure three meals a day. This narrow focus underestimates the true scale of poverty. And when a problem is consistently underestimated, it only worsens. Since poverty is framed around income, proposed solutions remain the same – income-based interventions. In Zambia, the default answer has always been economic growth. To a hammer, everything is a nail.
Reflecting on the era of the MMD government, particularly its Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), one cannot help but notice the barrage of hollow developmental buzzwords that were all centred on economic growth – phrases like ‘growth with prosperity,’ ‘inclusive growth,’ and ‘participatory development.’ Despite our leaders’ enthusiastic promotion of these terms, actual poverty marched on relentlessly, wreaking havoc on the population. It did so with a sense of indifference, as it had been misdiagnosed and left unresolved. This persistent poverty only served to perpetuate itself. We brought a knife to a gunfight! Today, many individuals from that MMD period continue to hold positions in the current administration. We must demand that they take responsibility for entrenching poverty during their tenure. On this account, the World Bank must also take responsibility for creating a hegemony of policy solutions that do not lead to poverty reduction. This growth first idea is very much their own.
Inter-generational transmission
A critical aspect of Zambia’s poverty issue is its self-reproduction, which reveals its chronic and structural nature. While national poverty proportions offer a useful snapshot, absolute numbers are far more crucial for effective policymaking. According to the World Bank report, our poverty is worse than reported in the LMCS, but this is not surprising. When we look at the national poverty headcount in relation to the national population, the total number of people living in poverty has been steadily increasing. In 2010, poverty affected 60% of the population (over 6 million people); by 2015, while the percentage decreased slightly to 54%, the actual number of people living in poverty grew to over 8 million.
This highlights the growing scale of poverty in Zambia – a poverty that is rising alongside population growth. This trend should be central to policymaking, as it reflects the intergenerational transmission of poverty. It points to a deeper issue: the economy, despite growth, has not worked for the majority. It has largely bypassed those who need it the most. Such persistent poverty cannot be resolved with income-centric approaches or empty buzzwords like “growth with equity.” The World Bank acknowledges that the growth years were not inducing poverty reduction. So, logically, if growth did not lead to poverty reduction, is the solution an insistence on more growth?
The PF government must be held accountable for the lack of progress during their tenure, but previous administrations must also take responsibility for championing ineffective economic growth centric policies. The current government, unfortunately, continues to buy into the same outdated approach reflected in the PRSPs. In essence, we are stuck on the same path, skidding like a car on grease, repeating the same cycle of IMF-inspired solutions: deregulating the private sector, cutting taxes for corporations to attract investment, removing subsidies, distributing seeds and fertilizers to poor farmers, and offering cash transfers to the poorest. This leads to national debates about who deserves cash transfers more between two similarly situated households in Muchinga. This cycle needs to end. Poverty must be addressed at its root with a multisectoral approach, grounded in citizens’ entitlements rather than state benevolence. What must ask the question, how is the current government empowering the Zambian citizen to drive and benefit from economy growth; to reduce inequality in real terms? If our answer is some political slogan, or some gobbledygook then I am afraid, even this decade will be a lost one.
Currents of urbanisation
The last aspect of the World Bank’s analysis that stands out is the claim that poverty in rural areas around urban centres has declined – a conclusion that seems almost too obvious. After all, how could poverty in Mungule remain unchanged when the entire population of Lusaka seems to be relocating to Katuba and utilizing areas of Chongwe as food production hubs for the capital? The transformation of greater Lusaka is already underway, but it’s not without its share of urban challenges, like unplanned settlements. While local council planners and administrators are still waiting for full council meetings to take place, people are already building on cemeteries. We have so thoroughly rejected structure, order, and planning that we build wherever we find space.
A recent study on urban poverty revealed the frustrations of urban planners, who pointed out the overwhelming influence of politics on administrative decisions. In some cases, buildings without official approval were allowed to proceed, supported by political backing. This politicization of urban governance has inadvertently contributed to the (de)urbanization of major cities, fostering the rise of small hubs that could potentially stimulate economic activity in peri-urban areas. However, this shift also breeds new forms of inequality.
What we’re witnessing is not a genuine reduction in poverty, but its temporary displacement, with deeper poverty waiting to explode. Many are migrating from rural areas to urban centres to escape politically engineered social exclusion, while others are fleeing the city, relocating to its outskirts. If urban planning continues to neglect the needs of these peri-urban zones, they too will suffer from overcrowding, inadequate infrastructure, and poverty. Policymakers must shift focus toward sustainable urban development and inclusive planning to address these growing challenges before they reach a breaking point. The report highlights the potential of agriculture, including informal small-scale farming, for asset accumulation. But how can this be achieved when farm input costs are prohibitively high, and veterinary services remain costly and inadequate? Small-scale farmers lose livestock due to lack of water and poor vaccination services. If the solution is for each individual to build their own deep tank, vaccination centre, and dam, then in 10 years, we’ll likely be lamenting another lost decade on social media.
