The Economy Grew by 5.3 per cent in the Last Three Years: What it Means When Economy Grows by 5.3%.

By Melicious Chongo

“the economy grew by 5.3 per cent in the last 3 years…” Hichilema made this claim at the official opening of the 4th session of the 13th National Assembly on Sept. 13, 2024.

I don’t have to be an economist to offer an intelligent analysis on some of these economic issues. My being a Zambian citizen, who experiences first hand whatever takes on Zambian soils, is sufficiently enough itself.
Obviously, the questions are, was HH accurate with his statistics? Why did HH make that apparently bold claim? What macro/micro metrix was he using? What were his objectives in making such bold claim? What does it really mean when any country experiences growth at such a rate during any period?

In what follows below, I try to tease out this bold claim. I was a little skeptical when I heard HH quote that figure!
You see, for many of us, as Martin Luther King Jr put it, ‘the soft, sentimental, nostalgic part of us would so easily like to bask in the Sun of vague economic growth, forgetting the horror of harsh economic realities…’
In the comforts and complacency that power brings, we would like to forget the agonizing pain and anguish suffered and endured by the majority in these horrifying harsh economic realities.
I refuse to think and accept that HH was accurate with that economic growth rate he gave. Let me support, also my bold claim, by beginning with the last question above: What does it really mean when the economy of any nation is said to grow at that rate during any period of time?
First, a period of three years is, for me, quite enough already for the growth to begin to trickle down to the life of the people in society, from the smallest of the vulnerable to the least vulnerable. It is enough to begin to effect fundamental, real and practical change in the lives of the people.
Second but related to the first, is that even the constitution itself to have mandated only a five year term of office for any administration, the assumption is that that administration would have achieved its mandate to govern at the pleasure and satisfaction of the masses, effectively and lastingly changing their lives for better in that five year term.

Otherwise, any administration that wants to extend its stay in power on the basis of its period in power and not on the basis of transforming lives for which that power (or indeed governance/leadership) was meant, then it’s a rogue leadership, and not worthy of the people’s vote again!

The UPND administration has already literally done its five year constitutional mandate.
Third is the figure 5.3% itself. 5.3 per cent growth of any economy at any given time is quite some growth for true lasting chandes to begin to be experienced in the lives of the objective of that growth – the masses themselves.
Growing the economy is not an end in itself. It is for the people, by the people, to the peolpe, and meant for them. Otherwise it is vague growth, merely a figure meant for rhetoric!
Drawing on the growth model of Amartya Sen, every economic growth should ultimately translate into these three things: Sustenance, Freedoms of the masses and Worthiness of life (that is, quality of life, dignity or value).
I wrote extensively on Amartya Sen’s idea of economic growth in my article I did some time in 2022 titled ” Assessing HH’s Governance.” Suffice to simply ask here: Are the masses able to sustain themselves? To waht extent are their incomes able to sustain them?
It is even sad to think about it, but truth be told, people in many homes today have even cut down their meals because their incomes can’t allow them so much! Food and shelter for the majority of the people have become a luxury they can only dream about, and not a basic need.

They cannot even buy certain food stuffs because of electricity. So, if indeed the economy has grown that much, how many formal employments can it create or indeed sustain? Has the individual income gap significantly closed during the last three years?
Regarding expanding of freedoms of the people, beyond just political freedom, how much can the masses do with their incomes? For example, just a vacation is very important in the life of an individual. But how many and who can actually afford such social amenities currently?
How free and flexible are our institutions in supporting the goals and aspirations of an ordinary Zambian? How free are Zambians more able to own serious businesses, mines, and industries etc today than three years ago? How many and who actually own the economy?
How many new Zambian business entrants into market have we seen in these last three years? How many old Zambian businesses have expanded into market the last three years? How many Zambian billionaires or millionaires has the economy actually produced the last three years?

Then about the dignity and worthiness of the masses, how have the people increased in their feelings of worthiness in the last three years? How more worthy or confident do people feel about themselves today than they felt perhaps 3/4 years ago?
This may be funny to state, but people are literally avoiding interactions today more than previously, for fear of being embarrassed – they are literally running away from visitors! The social media lifestyles we see is different from reality. So, can the masses, especially the smallest of society, really be said to be more proud of themsselves than they were three years ago?
Indeed, there is a lot that can be said. But this only serves to underscore a point that making such bold claims about the economy must be backed up by reality on the ground.
Economic growth must ultimately lead to improved living standards, equitably distributed resources and opportunities, improved and increased national income, with ultimately increased individual household incomes. Growth in one sector must ultimately trigger growth in other sectors. It must have knock-ons, not just dry, dead figures!

Reuben Mtolo, Agriculture Minister, underscored this point while speaking at a United Nations World Food Program (UNWFP) Annual Executive Board on July 2 last year when he said, “Agriculture is a critical sector for economic development, poverty reduction and food and nutritional security.”
He couldn’t have said it any better than that. When there’s growth, say, in the agricultural sector, or indeed the mines, this growth should inevitably impact for example the social sector or the health sector, evidenced by by “reduced poverty levels, and improved food and nutritional security” respectively.
But one is only left to guess the meaning of the purported growth given high poverty and hunger levels in the country! How does one even begin to reconcile the 5.3% growth against the majority of masses threatened with hunger, poverty, and stunting?
My fourth point is historical. Contrasting HH’s 5.3% growth rate in three years with that of President Levy Patrick Mwanawasa (LPM) Administration, it becomes extremely difficult to understand HH’s figures.
Dr. knox Chitiyo, then Head of Africa Programme, RUSI, noted in his article of August 22, 2008, that economic growth averaged 5 per cent during LPM’s Administration – and in 6 years! And it is was at this growth rate that actually saw Zambia with well controlled macroeconomic fundamentals – improved Kwacha., improved inflation, controlled unemployment, improved living standards etc, and positioned Zambia as a powerful economy both locally and regionally!

It must be emphasized here that this was in six years! Now, talking about a 5.3% growth of HH and his Administration, it is even quite ambitious, yet a contradiction when contrasted with reality on the ground!
In addition, the experience of the Asian Tigers is yet another reference point. These too grew their economies roughly at 7-8% growth rate. Though it may be argued that 5.3% is below 7 or 8 per cent, but it is not far below. The difference is neglibible!
Therefore, with these reasons, one can rightfully ask, but then is HH accurate with those figures? What or who is driving the growth? What metrices is he using? Growth for who? What is his objective?
The authors of “Economic Development” try to argue that ‘it is not enough and does not matter much the rate at which the economy grows, but the nature of that growth, the kind of incentives provided, the actors in the economy, how many and what kind of people participate in the economy, the quality of life of those people, what kind of institutions are created, etc also matters.

Based on my reasons above, I totally agree with Muhabi Lungu when he HH is not accurate with 5.3 per cent growth. But why would he be insincere with issues of such national importance?
HH may obviously be trying to speak to his geopolitical base, and appease his benefactors, local and abraod, especially considering that he may be in a campaign panic! It may be his desperate but futile attempt to guarantee himself of a vote by painting a rosy picture.
It may be a statistical manipulation, overlooking inequalities, unemployment, and poverty levels designed to create a savior image. Or if at all his figures are really accurate, then this is largely a debt-driven growth, which is a negative positive! Economists themselves say that growth, which is propelled by or financed through debts, may burden future generations and ultimately translates into nothing!
If we have really grown that much, but against such a backdrop of economic hardships, then it is highly likely that much of its benefits have all ended up in HH’s pockets and those of his friends!
Of course some macroeconomic fundamentals, such as poverty, inequalities, and unemployment, may take time to respond to economic growth. But then how was it still possible under LPM’s Administration, with a slightly lower growth rate than one we are being told here, and in 6 years!

Ours is not so much a problem of some macroeconomic indicators taking long to respond, as it is so much a problem of leadership vacuum. Our problem is one of historical, institutional, and systemic issues that continue to be deliberately ignored by greedy, selfish, corrupt and calculating leaders that hinder inclusive gowth!
It is fundamentally a problem of leaders who have historically and consistently advanced pro-corporate, pro-elite policies at the expense of pro-poor ones. And HH represents a crowning of pro-corporate, pro-elite champions in the history of the country!
They say inequalities do not auto or self correct. They demand strong selfless leaders to do so; they require effective policies and resolute implementation. And seen this way, growing inclusive economy can be much faster and easier!
Muhabi Lungu goes further and backs his argument with statistics at Ministry of Finance, which indicate the opposite of HH’s claim.
Therefore, HH is either being misled by his speech makers, or he is intentional and deliberate about twisting figures; but both, his speech makers and himself, are dangerous!
He must apologize to the public for making a mockery of the people with those figures!