Printer-friendly versionSend by emailPDF version

Zambia is not over-populated. On the contrary its small population is an economic disadvantage. A sensible population policy should let the country’s population grow to about 20 million people, after which the government can institute appropriate population control measures

Recent statements by some Zambian politicians that the country’s rate of population growth of around 3% is too high are misplaced. With its current population of around 14 million people, and a population density of around 18 persons per square kilometer, Zambia is relatively one of the most sparsely populated countries in the world.

What we seriously need is for the government to prudently harness and marshal the country’s resources in order to meet the basic needs and expectations of the people.

A large population is an important element in our country’s quest for heightened socio-economic development. Many economists have recognized this fact, arguing that a large overall population can, among other things, increase the potential size of a country’s domestic market to a level that is economically favorable to an expansion in both local and foreign investment.

A good example is Todaro. In his contention, a large overall population increases the potential size of a country’s domestic market. And, as Kasun has maintained, population growth encourages producers to specialize and use more efficient, large-scale modes of production.

In fact, low population density, as Timberlake has maintained, can make the nationwide provision of healthcare and educational facilities in a country difficult, as well as inhibit agricultural development by complicating the distribution of essential tools, fertilizers, and pesticides.

Retel-Laurentin, quoted by Timberlake, could not have asked a more apt question in this regard: ‘How can the soil be cultivated with ... [very few"> inhabitants per square kilometer ... [h">ow can roads be maintained, how can the economy and trading be properly developed?’

As Sibanda has maintained, business entities in sparsely populated countries like Zambia can, therefore, benefit from large-scale production only if governments pursue economic integration, as well as seek to trade openly with other countries.

In the case of African countries in general, Rodney has summed up this problem in the following words:

‘It has now become common knowledge that one of the principal reasons why genuine industrialization cannot easily be realized in Africa today is that the market for manufactured goods in any single African country is too small, and there is no integration of the markets across large areas of ... [the continent">.’

Such countries cannot, therefore, benefit from economies of scale that are usually associated with large-scale production. There are basically two important factors attributable to this state of affairs. Firstly, domestic markets in these countries are generally inadequate. And, secondly, potential foreign markets for products of such economies are, by and large, inacce¬ssible.

A suitable population policy in the case of a country like Zambia should, therefore, be one that would let the country’s population to grow at the current average annual rate of natural increase of around 3% up to about 20 million people, after which the government can institute appropriate population control measures so that the increase can taper off until zero growth can be attained at 30 million people—which would give the country approximately 40 persons per square kilometer.

Obviously, a population density of just over 40 persons per square kilometer is negligible, particularly for a country that is richly endowed with an enormous variety of natural resources. What, by any measure, are 40 persons per square kilometer compared to, for example, the Netherlands’ 495 persons per square kilometer, Belgium’s 365 persons per square kilometer, Germany’s 235 persons per square kilometer, Japan’s 352 persons per square kilometer, and the United Kingdom’s 260 persons per square kilometer?

After all, it is ostensibly more rational for a poor, sparsely populated country like Zambia that is endowed with abundant natural resources to direct its efforts, time, and commitment at creating an economy whose growth in commercial and industrial outputs outstrips existing and potential demand than on restricting population growth.

The Malthusian view that population growth needs to be stemmed in order to prevent the misery, hunger, and pestilence which can follow if population exceeds the carrying capacity of a given physical environment does not, therefore, apply to sparsely populated, resource-rich countries like Zambia.

As such, global population control efforts need to be targeted at countries whose economies have already benefitted from inventions and innovations induced by pressures on socio-economic institutions resulting from steady increases in population, and/or those whose population sizes and/or densities are relatively excessive.

Therefore, voluntary actions by national governments in this endeavor —such as that taken by the U.S. government upon the recommendations of the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future (CPGAF) constituted in 1969 — are critical. The following excerpt sums up the conclusions of the Commission:

‘[N]o substantial benefits will result from further growth of the Nation’s population ... [w">e have looked for, and have not found, any convincing economic argument for continued population growth.’

In conclusion, an adequate local market and accessibility to foreign markets can enable a country’s business entities to attain both economies of scale and economies of scope, and ultimately bolster the country’s quest for heightened socio-economic development.

* Henry Kyambalesa is a Zambian academic currently residing in the city of Denver, Colorado, US


1. Business Week, ‘What is the Key to Progress?’ May 16, 1964, p. 132.

2. Commission on Population Growth and the American Future (CPGAF), Population and the American Future (New York: New American Library, Inc., 1972).

3. Davis, K. and Blomstrom, R.L., Business and Society: Environment and Responsibili¬ty, Third Edition (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975), pp. 115-16.

4. Kasun, J., The War against Population: The Economics and Ideology of World Population Control (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1988), p. 56.

5. Kyambalesa, Henry, The Quest for Technological Development: Constraints, Caveats and Initiatives (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2001).

6. ______, Socio-Economic Challenges: The African Context (Trenton, New Jersey: Africa World Press, 2004).

6. Malthus, T.R., An Essay on Population (London: H. M. Dent and Company, 1914 [first published in 1798">).

7. Rodney, W., How Europe Underdeveloped Africa (Washington, DC: Howard University Press, 1982), p. 109.

8. Sibanda, A.E., “The Need for a Developmentalist State,” Sou¬thern Af¬rica Po¬liti¬cal and Ec¬o¬no¬mic Mo¬nth¬ly, July 1993, pp. 46 and 48.

9. Timberlake, L., Africa in Crisis: The Causes, the Cures of Environmen¬tal Bankruptcy (Philadelphia, USA: New Society Publish¬ers, 1986), p. 199.

10. Todaro, M., Economic Development, Fifth Edition (New York: Longman, 1994), pp. 100-103.

* Please do not take Pambazuka for granted! Become a Friend of Pambazuka and make a donation NOW to help keep Pambazuka FREE and INDEPENDENT!
* Please send comments to editor[at]pambazuka[dot]org or comment online at Pambazuka News.