Zambia is increasingly exposed to climate-related shocks, particularly droughts and floods, which continue to undermine agricultural productivity, household welfare, and long-term development. In response, geographically concentrated investments – referred to as growth poles – have been promoted as engines of pro-poor growth and resilience. However, evidence of their effectiveness is limited. This study examines whether and how growth poles contribute to poverty reduction and climate resilience using a mixed-methods approach that combines nationally representative spatial data from Living Conditions Monitoring Surveys, panel data on poverty trajectories from the Rural and Agricultural Livelihood Survey, and qualitative evidence from focus group discussions, life histories, and key informant interviews conducted across selected growth pole districts, including including farm blocks, mining areas, national parks, and sugar estates.

The findings show that growth poles can stimulate economic activity and generate new livelihood opportunities, but their impacts are uneven and context-specific. Agro-industrial growth poles, particularly sugar estates, exhibit the strongest poverty outcomes due to deeper integration with local production systems and labour markets. Mining areas generate significant economic dynamism and employment opportunities, but benefits are uneven, often accruing to individuals with higher skills, capital, or social connections, including migrants. In contrast, farm blocks and national parks show persistently high poverty levels, reflecting limited infrastructure, restricted access to productive resources, and the seasonal or unstable nature of available opportunities.

Proximity to growth poles does not automatically translate into improved welfare. Only a small share of households live close to these investments, and poverty remains high even among nearby communities. In some cases, households located in intermediate zones (21–60km from growth poles) exhibit better poverty outcomes than those closest to growth poles, suggesting that spillover benefits – such as improved market access – extend beyond core investment areas while avoiding congestion and rising living costs. Growth poles contribute to livelihood diversification, which is a key pathway to resilience. Households engaged in non-farm employment, enterprise activities, and diversified income portfolios are better able to cope with climatic shocks. However, the resilience benefits of diversification depend on the quality and stability of these opportunities. In many cases, growth pole-linked employment is informal, low paid, and seasonal, limiting its ability to provide sustained protection against shocks.

A central finding is that growth poles generate selective rather than broad-based welfare gains. Households with greater amounts of assets, more education, and more developed social networks are better positioned to benefit from employment, contracts, and supply opportunities. As a result, growth poles contribute to localised economic transformation while reinforcing socioeconomic differentiation. Importantly, households that do not benefit are not necessarily worse off than before, but experience more limited gains relative to others, reflecting uneven inclusion rather than absolute decline. The study also finds that growth poles do not automatically enhance climate resilience. In some contexts, particularly mining aeras and farm blocks, resilience has declined over time due to unstable livelihoods, continued reliance on climate-sensitive agriculture, and structural constraints such as limited land access and weak market integration.

Policy implications emphasise the need for complementary interventions. Strengthening household asset bases is critical for enabling participation in growth pole economies and enhancing resilience. Improving access to appropriately structured finance – particularly for productive investment – can support livelihood upgrading, though grant-based support remains necessary for poorer households. Promoting diversification must be accompanied by efforts to improve the quality and stability of non-farm employment. Strengthening local participation in supply chains is essential to ensure that growth pole demand benefits surrounding communities. Finally, extending investments beyond core growth pole areas can enhance spillover benefits and support more inclusive regional development.

Overall, growth poles have the potential to contribute to poverty reduction and climate resilience, but only when they are supported by policies that expand access to opportunities and address underlying structural inequalities. Without such measures, their benefits are likely to remain localised and uneven.

Authors: Mary Lubungu, Benny Kabwela, Brian Mulenga, Richard Bwalya, Arthur Moonga

Read the report

This report synthesises the key research findings of the Zambia Poverty Dynamics programme since the last national report in 2021, whose key findings and recommendations are summarised in Box 1.1. Many dimensions have remained the same; however, the main changes include: (1) a dramatic reversal in urban poverty reduction; (2) a very significant increase in new policy developments, especially in human development, although not yet in ‘growth from below’, but significant progress was achieved in fisheries with the return of fishing ban periods each year on major rivers and lakes to allow fish stocks to recover, laying the foundation for income growth in fishing.

This report starts by laying out which policy interventions have become significantly more visible and impactful since the last report, presenting the evidence from quantitative and qualitative research, and focusing on governance and implementation issues. Policy interventions are even more critical to poverty reduction and climate resilience in the Zambian context, it is argued, because of the ‘enclave’ nature of the dominant mining sector, which leads economic growth, at least when commodity prices are high (Pijuan Sala and Tudela Pye 2024), and which the current government wishes to grow rapidly. The majority of Zambians are employed or self-employed in comparatively low-productivity sectors, agriculture and services, which are generally disconnected from mining and other formal sectors such as tourism. Resulting high levels of inequality do not generate the market demand for micro- and small businesses’ outputs and services, leaving these with low investment and productivity. But they do generate the need and potential for redistribution through taxation, even if fiscal resources are for the moment heavily constrained by debt servicing.

As a result of these high inequalities, growth has not carried everyone with it. Therefore, only interventions will assist poor and vulnerable people to improve their life chances, until the pattern of growth changes and begins to make a contribution. So far the most successful interventions have been in human development. Their success has been extremely valuable but has not yet laid the foundations for more inclusive growth from below, which is necessary if poverty is to be sustainably reduced. Both of these – human development and growth from below – are required to enable sustained escapes from poverty or ‘graduations’, which are the objective of anti-poverty policy.

The report goes on to briefly assess the effects of the multiple crises that have assailed Zambia in the past five years, with an analysis of impacts on urban populations, and differentiating between extremely poor and moderately poor households, and men- and women-headed households. It also looks at policy responses to these crises, including disaster risk management, and raises the question of how to respond in the likely event that such crisis-prone times continue. This is followed by a closely related discussion on whether and how more widespread resilience to climate change might be achieved. The analysis is gendered throughout, and concludes with key policy and programming recommendations.

Authored by Andrew Shepherd, Richard Bwalya, Antony Chapoto, Lucia da Corta, Marta Eichsteller, Vidya Diwakar, Marja Hinfelaar, Mary Lubungu, Arthur Moonga, Brian Mulenga, Kate Pruce, Joseph Simbaya

Click here to read the full National Report