Three Pairs of Numbers, One Hard Truth: Zambia Must Learn From Manila's Economic Mistakes

While Zambians fight for every kwacha, a story from the other side of the world carries a warning we cannot afford to ignore. The Philippine government recently released three pairs of economic numbers that, taken together, expose a common problem: capital, public spending, and labor are not being combined to generate strong, resilient growth. For a nation like ours, rich in resources and young energy, this is a lesson in what happens when leaders choose the wrong investments over the people's future.

What do the Philippine numbers actually say?

The first pair of numbers shows a 2.3 percent GDP growth in the second quarter of 2026, alongside a jump in unemployment to 4.9 percent in June, up from 3.7 percent a year earlier. The second pair reveals an 8.3 percent increase in government consumption, but a shocking 32.4 percent decline in government construction. The third pair boasts a 94.4 percent rise in investment approvals, yet projected employment from those approvals is set to decline by nearly 30 percent.

These are not just foreign statistics. They are a mirror held up to the dangers of prioritizing fancy numbers over the daily struggles of ordinary workers.

Why is unemployment rising even when the economy grows?

This is the first trap. Unemployment increased even as employment rose because the labor force expanded faster than job creation. The economy simply could not absorb the wave of people entering the job market. Underemployment also climbed from 11.4 percent to 12.1 percent, meaning more workers are being forced into low-quality, unstable jobs just to survive.

This is a structural problem. Technology is polarizing labor into high-value and low-value tasks, leaving a hollowed-out middle. For Zambia, which is also passing through a demographic transition with a large working-age population, this is a direct warning. The demographic dividend is not automatic. It only works if workers have the right skills and if productive jobs actually exist to absorb them.

What happens when government spends on consumption instead of construction?

The second pair of numbers shows a government that frontloaded its budget but chose the wrong investment. Public consumption rose, but public construction collapsed. Current spending keeps the lights on, but it does not build the roads, schools, and energy grids that expand a nation's productive capacity.

Focused spending on productive infrastructure and human capital would have supported labor capabilities and reduced unemployment. Instead, the Philippines chose the easy path. Zambia must not repeat this mistake. Every kwacha spent on consumption without building our national backbone is a kwacha stolen from our children's future.

Why are investment approvals rising while jobs are shrinking?

The third pair is the most telling. Investment approvals surged, but the projected employment from those projects fell by 29.8 percent. This signals a shift toward capital-intensive projects that use machines instead of people. While Zambia needs technologically advanced investment, the dilemma is whether these investments are connected to the rest of the economy.

If a factory employs few workers directly but creates no jobs in logistics, maintenance, or local supply chains, it becomes an island of productivity. It does not lift the surrounding community. The Philippines is learning this the hard way. We must ensure that every foreign or domestic investment is tied to local workers and suppliers.

Can capital and labor work together instead of against each other?

The main argument is that capital and labor need not be substitutes. Better machinery can make workers more productive, while skilled workers allow firms to use advanced technology effectively. The same complementarity can occur through domestic supply chains. A semiconductor plant may employ few workers directly, but it can generate jobs through logistics, construction, business services, and local suppliers.

These wider effects depend on the quality of domestic linkages. Strong linkages transfer technology, develop suppliers, improve standards, and create opportunities for workers and small enterprises to move into more productive activities.

What should investment policy look like for Zambia?

Investment incentives should not be based mainly on the amount of capital committed. They must also recognize employment, worker training, domestic sourcing, supplier development, and technology transfer where these can be measured and enforced. The objective is not to force investors to become more labor intensive. It is to ensure that technologically advanced investments are connected to domestic firms and workers strongly enough to generate wider productivity and employment gains.

Zambia must write its own rules. We must demand that investors who want access to our copper, our land, and our people actually invest in our people.

What is the final message for Zambia?

The three pairs of numbers tell one story. Slow growth and weak labor absorption show that the Philippines is not fully using its demographic advantage. Higher government consumption without capital formation limits productive capacity. Rising investment without stronger employment linkages risks creating islands of productivity that do not spread across the economy.

Zambia still has a potentially powerful combination: a large working-age population and rising investor interest. But the demographic window will not remain open indefinitely. The challenge is not to choose between labor and capital. It is to connect them.

We can recover from slowing growth by turning our large working-age population into a productive engine through stronger human capital, better infrastructure, and investment that creates jobs and integrates labor into economic transformation. Our leaders must hear this message loud and clear. The people of Zambia are watching.