FOLLOWING last week’s vote for the United Kingdom (UK)’s exit from the European Union (EU) I have received some calls and texts from readers who are interested in knowing whether Zambia could be affected in any way.
Some people have called in urging me to dedicate a column on that to ascertain if there are any implications to Zambia-UK relations as well as to that of Zambia and the EU.
Of course, mostly, the people are interested in Zambia’s relationship with UK and EU concerning trade and aid.
I know the people would want to know whether, as the result of the imminent pullout of UK from EU, the trade between EU and Zambia will dwindle or indeed if the assistance from that grouping would be affected.
I am aware that UK is one of the major contributors to Zambia’s development sectors directly through the Department for International Development (DFID) as well as through the EU.
More time is needed to look at some of the programmes which could be affected as the result of the changes, more so since it a rare happening.
My basic research shows that since inception, Greenland is the only other country to have left the EU or the European Economic Community (EEC) as it was called in 1985.
Soon we will dedicate a full column to the issue once armed with more information on the likely impact on Zambia.
My take is that the effects, both positive and negative, will be there.
For now we return to last week’s issue concerning the findings of the Zambia Institute for Policy Analysis and Research (ZIPAR) that Zambia’s city populations are expanding at an average rate of nearly four per cent per year.
I said that raises a lot of questions like are public facilities in these cities expanding at corresponding rates? What are the causes of this population explosion, is it a high rate of reproduction or merely rural-urban drift?
Generally, what is the impact of such population increase on service provisions, job opportunities and generally the standard of living?
Is it a good or bad thing that city populations are, on average, growing at that rate? How can we take advantage of such a population growth rate?
As indicated last week one factor which could account for the increase in the urban population is the reduction in the Zambian workforce employed in agriculture from 71.4 per cent to 48.9 per cent according to ZIPAR’s findings.
That change in the number of people employed in the agro sector has negative connotation more so since Zambia is an agricultural country which is aspiring to become the regional food basket.
The reduction means that fewer and fewer people are now helping in feeding the nation as more able-bodied people have drifted to urban areas.
Some of the former agricultural workers could be traced to the construction sector whose workforce increased by 128 per cent in 2014 from the 2008 figure.
The hospitality sector could also have stolen some of them given its expansion of formal employment by 63 per cent in the same period.
For those in the construction sector, one can only hope that once their contracts end they will have saved some money which they will invest into the agricultural sector in the areas they came from.
But is it a good or bad thing that city populations are, on average, growing at the rate ZIPAR has found?
In my view, generally, population increase is both bad and good depending on other factors especially the status of the families contributing to the rise in population.
I feel that generally in Africa the paradox has been that families, which need not even contribute to the rise in population, account for high number of children, thereby worsening their statuses.
At personal and family levels I view population increase as the multiplication of one’s status or that of his/her family.
For instance if the population for a well-to-do family with enough disposable income to send children to good schools is increasing, the wealth of that family will be multiplied because there are higher chances for the children to go to good school and find well-paying jobs.
By so saying I do not imply that all the children born in well-to-do family will make it in school but that there are higher chances of them doing that.
On the other hand if a barely surviving family swamped with debts and hopelessness is increasing the number of children, it would be tantamount to multiplying poverty because there are high chances the children may not even go to school let alone find any source of income.
Again this is not to insinuate that children born in poor families cannot become better in life but the indication is that there is a low probability for the children born in poor family to make it.
However, in Africa the irony is that most poor families increase at higher rates than the well-to-do ones, hence the challenge of the widening gap between the rich and the poor.
This is because the poor multiply their poverty while the rich grow their wealth. I hope that does not sound philosophical!
For comments: 0955 431442, 0977 246099, 0964 742506 or e-mail: jmuyanwa@gmail.com.