Minister Dr. Situmbeko Musokotwane dismisses Dr. Mbita Chitala’s GDP analysis

By Dr. Situmbeko Musokotwane, MP (Liuwa Constituency – UPND), Minister of Finance & National Planning

The online article by Dr. Mbita Chitala posted on his platform attempts to diagnose Zambia’s GDP growth & electricity challenges, but its logic suffers from methodological errors, misinterpretation of national accounts, selective data use & several factual inaccuracies. The result is just confusion as it lacks an intelligent & coherent story. Below is my reply.

1. GDP Growth Analysis — Major Methodological Errors

1.1 Miscalculation of GDP Growth

Dr. Chitala states: “GDP at market prices…K332,721m (2020), K442,337m (2021), K493,964m (2022), K557,406m (2023), K662,940m (2024)” Therefore growth is 1.1%, 3.3%, 1.3%, 1.9%. Wrong Approach: The figures cited by Dr Chitala are Nominal GDP, not Real GDP.

Nominal GDP vs. Real GDP: A Zambian Context

To accurately measure economic growth, one must separate the increase in production (actual growth) from the increase in prices (inflation).

#NominalGDP (Current-Price GDP): Measures the value of all goods & services produced in a year using that same year’s current market prices (in Kwacha). If Zambia’s prices (inflation) rise, Nominal GDP rises, even if the actual volume of copper, maize, or services produced doesn’t change. Dr. Chitala used this approach.

Real GDP (Constant-Price GDP): Measures the value of goods & services produced in a year using the prices from a fixed Base Year. This adjustment removes the effect of inflation, showing only the actual change in volume or quantity produced. This is the correct measure of economic growth.

Example: If the value of copper produced rises by 10%, but 7% of that is due to a price increase (inflation) & only 3% is due to mining more tons of copper (production), the Real GDP growth is 3%.

Fundamental Error: Dr. Chitala uses the nominal series & applies a real growth formula, which mathematically invalidates all conclusions.

National Accounting Principle: Nominal GDP growth does not imply real GDP growth. You must deflate nominal GDP using the GDP deflator. Conclusion: The stated growth rates in Dr. Chitala’s article are invalid & misleading.

1.2 Misinterpretation of the President’s “5.3%” growth rate statement

The stated average 5.3% growth since 2021 reflects real GDP growth, which ZAMSTATS & World Bank validate. According to the latest ZAMSTATS preliminary annual data (Constant 2010 Prices), the recent growth rates are: 2022: 5.2%, 2023: 5.4% and 2024: 4.0% (Preliminary). These figures are independently corroborated by ZamStats, the IMF, World Bank, & AfDB, & are substantially higher than the rates wrongly calculated by the Dr. Chitala. On the contrary, there is No evidence to support Dr. Chitala’s 1% numbers.

We implore him to cite any publication by an internationally respectable authority, to collaborate his GDP data.

1.3 Dr. Chitala says “GDP is fake because mining export revenues aren’t repatriated.”

This is a misrepresentation of national accounts. GDP measures production within a country, not where export proceeds are banked. If a mine produces copper in Zambia, the value added contributes to GDP, regardless of whether dollars are banked in Lusaka, London, Johannesburg, Zurich or elsewhere.

This principle is foundational in: SNA 2008 (UN), IMF manuals, World Bank System of National Accounts etc. Therefore, the claim by Dr. Chitala is false & reflects a misunderstanding of GDP methodology.

2. Population Growth Argument — Incorrect Interpretation

Dr. Chitala states that Zambia’s population grows at 3.3% & therefore the country is “regressing”. This could only be correct if real GDP per capita is falling. Collaborated data shows that real GDP per capita has been rising since 2021, not falling. But because Dr. Chitala’s GDP growth numbers are incorrect, his per-capita conclusion is also incorrect.

3. Electricity Sector Arguments — Factual & Analytical Errors

3.1 Incorrect characterization of total installed capacity

Dr. #Chitala states: “Zambia has 3,985 MW capacity thanks to PF’s 1,000 MW.” This misrepresents history. Kafue Gorge Lower (750 MW) was started under MMD, continued under PF, completed under UPND. Itezhi-Tezhi (120 MW) was completed in 2016. Scaling Solar (96 MW) started before 2016. Several mini-hydros & private plants were commissioned between 2018–2024. Claiming the PF “left 1,000 MW” oversimplifies a multi-administration effort. It’s a regrettable mindset.

3.2 Misrepresentation of load shedding causes

Dr. Chitala blames dismissal of water-management experts, electricity exports, political interference & the neglect of hydro, thermal, nuclear while favouring solar/wind. These claims lack evidence & ignore the primary cause acknowledged by Ministry of Energy, #ZESCO, ERB, SAPP, World Bank, climate scientists etc. The primary cause of the current power challenges is mainly the severe 2023/2024 drought & low water inflows precipitated by climate change, the worst in decades. Kariba, Kafue Gorge, & Itezhi-Tezhi all experienced critically low water levels.

Drought-induced power shortage is not new in Zambia & is not unique to the UPND administration. Under the PF regime which appointed Dr. Chitala as Zesco Chairman, intensive load shedding occurred in 2019. It was that load shedding that prompted a leading PF leader to urge citizens who complained to raise water-levels in the Kariba Dam by urinating in it. Exports do not create drought.

3.3 Selective & inconsistent electricity export data

Dr. Chitala casually uses ERB data, Lusaka Times reports (secondary source), UN Comtrade (WITS) values & Global Economy,.,com (a scraper website) as his sources. These sources measure different things. Some measure GWh exported, others measure trade value (USD), some reflect SAPP wheeling flows, others assign partner-country trade data using mirror statistics. The result, data is non-comparable, leading to false conclusions.

3.4 DR Chitala says “Stop exports to end load shedding”

This is a wrong conclusion & his preferred solution is flawed because exports are contractual — Zambia cannot unilaterally cancel without incurring penalties. Exports occur mainly during off-peak hours. It is important to recall that hydro reservoirs are seasonal and, therefore, exports do not materially change water levels in our lakes. Key to exports, Zambia earns foreign exchange, which finances #imports & stabilizes the Kwacha.

Stopping exports entirely would not fix drought-driven load shedding. By the way, Dr. Chitala, a former Chairman of ZESCO who was appointed & dismissed by the PF administration, claims that ZESCO exports electricity to Tanzania. How can that ever be possible at this time because there is no interconnector between the two countries? Moreover, Tanzania is a net producer of electricity.

4. Energy Mix Arguments — Technical & Economic Misunderstandings

Dr. Chitala argues that “Hydro, thermal & nuclear are the only solutions; solar & wind are unstable.” This is unrealistic for Zambia’s context. Hydro is vulnerable to drought (current crisis). Thermal is expensive, pollutes & requires forex-intensive fuel imports. Nuclear is extremely expensive (USD 5–10 billion for one plant) & takes 10–15 years to develop.

Modern Economic Consensus is that a resilient energy mix requires hydro as base load, solar PV (cheap & fast to deploy), wind where viable, battery storage, regional interconnectors, & flexible thermal backup, among other identical initiatives. Dismissing renewable energy sources is economically outdated. Dr. Chitala should not resist the modern energy development paradigm.

5. Policy Claims — Ideological, Not Evidence-Based

Arguments about “neo-liberalism”, “Washington Consensus”, or “new developmental state” are not grounded in empirical sector analysis. They are ideological assertions without direct linkage to Zambia’s actual energy sector structure.

6. Overall Conclusions

Dr. Mbita Chitala’s analysis contains multiple serious flaws:

#GDPAnalysis:

– Uses nominal GDP, not real GDP thereby invalidating growth estimates
– Wrong formula application
– Incorrect claim that exports “fake GDP”
– Misunderstanding of national accounts

Anecdotal electricity analysis:

– Ignores drought as primary cause reduced hydro-generation
– Misuses multiple inconsistent datasets
– Overstates role of exports
– Incorrect history of capacity additions
– Ideologically dismisses renewable energy & proposes economically unrealistic solutions (nuclear)

Dr. Chitala’s Policy Diagnosis is based on incorrect data leading to incorrect prescriptions, lacks sector modelling and wantonly mischaracterizes reforms under UPND. Clearly, the analysis is not technically sound. His GDP calculations are wrong, energy-sector diagnosis is flawed, & many of his conclusions are rooted in misinterpretation, data cherry-picking, inconsistent sources, & ideological bias rather than economic evidence. Dr. Chitala’s analysis cannot be used as a basis for economic or policy decision-making.

7. Final Remarks on Academic Rigor & Professional Responsibility

Economic analysis carries a high public responsibility. Interpretation of GDP, national accounts, electricity sector performance, & macro-fiscal trends must be grounded in methodological accuracy, contextual understanding, & proper use of data. When foundational concepts such as real versus nominal GDP, hydrological constraints, or power-pool market mechanisms are misunderstood, the resulting conclusions inadvertently mislead the public, policymakers, & markets.

In this regard, it is important for all analysts—including respected senior citizens such as Dr. Chitala—to exercise intellectual humility when approaching technical issues that require specialist knowledge in economics & statistics. Zambia has capable statisticians, macroeconomists, energy engineers, climate scientists, accountants, hydrologists, & modelling experts whose insights are essential for accurate analysis.

Seeking clarification from these professionals is not a weakness; it is a mark of scholarly maturity & analytical discipline.

Constructive engagement with experts strengthens public debate, improves the quality of national discourse, & ensures that commentary—especially commentary from elderly public commentators—contributes positively to the country’s development. Misinterpretations can be corrected through dialogue, & complex economic or technical questions can always be resolved through consultation with qualified practitioners.

In this spirit, future interventions by Chitala would benefit from closer collaboration with Zambia’s professional community & from adherence to internationally recognised analytical frameworks. This approach enhances credibility, supports informed policymaking, & ultimately serves the national

About The Author