IMF as coolant, cot cure
“Sustainable development requires a broader and more complex policy package targeted at critical sectors such as agriculture, energy, mining value chains, manufacturing, and human capital,” prods Zambian Social Economist Kelvin Chisanga
Zambian Social Economist Kelvin Chisanga
By Kelvin Chisanga
Zambia’s engagement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) should be viewed as a stabilisation strategy, not a development cure-all.
The Fund did not come in to design national development, but as a strategic complement to cushion the economy from deep macroeconomic stress triggered by unsustainable debt, weakened confidence, and fiscal imbalances.
IMF interventions have largely acted as an economic coolant, helping to stabilise the currency, restore fiscal discipline, unlock concessional financing, and neutralise or “iodise” the most damaging effects of debt overhang.
In this sense, the programme prevented a far worse economic outcome during the debt stand-off period.
However, stabilisation is not the same as growth. While IMF support helps stop economic bleeding, it does not automatically generate productivity, jobs, or structural transformation.
Zambia’s challenge has been the limited parallel deployment of comprehensive growth models that integrate sector-specific reforms, value addition, and investment-led expansion.
This reality reinforces a key lesson: the IMF is one instrument, not the entire policy framework.
Sustainable development requires a broader and more complex policy package targeted at critical sectors such as agriculture, energy, mining value chains, manufacturing, and human capital.
Without IMF support, Zambia would likely have faced severe economic dislocation. That said, full stabilisation typically takes two to three years, especially amid election-cycle pressures.
The priority now is to transition from macroeconomic stabilisation to inclusive economic transformation, ensuring stability translates into real improvements in livelihoods.
About The Author
