There is something radical about the idea of Zambia’s economy never sleeping. The idea that factories should continue humming through the early hours, that key border posts should still be processing trucks at midnight, or that a shift worker knocking off at 03:00 should be able to find a meal, catch a bus and feel safe walking to it. This is the vision at the heart of the 24-hour economy, a model that has moved from a political talking point to a genuine policy conversation and one that deserves focused, clear-eyed analysis.
At its core, a 24-hour economy simply means what it says: continuous economic activity sustained across all hours, built on shift-based work systems, extended business operations and the infrastructure holding it all together. This is not a new concept. It is already practised in different areas of the globe, but its application in a developing economy like Zambia’s raises specific questions that go beyond the headline ambition.
The economic case is not difficult to construct. Zambia’s manufacturing sector has shown signs of recovery and expansion, but it remains a relatively small part of the overall economy, contributing around 9.3 per cent of GDP in 2024 according to World Bank data, with ZamStats reporting manufacturing growth of 7.1 per cent in 2025. That makes the 24-hour economy argument less about an already massive manufacturing base and more about how Zambia can extract greater productivity from existing factories, logistics hubs, border facilities and commercial infrastructure that often sit idle for large portions of every day.
In manufacturing, round-the-clock operations could meaningfully increase output without a proportional increase in capital expenditure. In retail and services, extended hours could broaden access for workers on non-standard schedules and expand consumer spending windows and purchasing behaviours. In logistics, operating 24 hours at key border crossings would reduce transit times and strengthen Zambia’s position as a regional trade corridor. With exports worth K333.4 billion in 2025 and road transport accounting for K314.6 billion of that total, faster and more reliable border operations would directly affect Zambia’s trade competitiveness.
Job creation is perhaps the most immediate social argument. Shift-based employment structures can increase the number of roles within an operation, particularly when businesses genuinely expand output rather than simply redistribute existing labour. Zambia’s 2024 Labour Force Survey recorded a working-age population of 11,995,355, of whom 4,560,760 were already in the labour force. It is easy to see why the argument is attractive for a country with a young, growing workforce: more operating hours can create more shifts, but only where demand, labour protections and business margins support them.
However, the broader competitive case is perhaps the most compelling. Economies that have embraced extended operations, such as Singapore, parts of South Korea and various Gulf states, have used the model to attract investment, improve productivity metrics and signal to the world that they are open and efficient. The government has targeted real GDP growth of 6.4 per cent in 2026, while some external forecasts are more cautious. Either way, Zambia’s growth ambitions place pressure on its infrastructure and productivity systems to evolve alongside that target.
And yet, the distance between policy ambition and lived reality has derailed more than a few well-intentioned economic programmes. Practical concerns around safety, transport, labour rights and power supply are not distractions from the 24-hour economy debate; they are the conditions that will determine whether it succeeds or stalls.
Security is the most immediate concern. A 24-hour economy requires people to be mobile at night, to commute, to work, to transact. That movement demands reliable street lighting, effective policing, and safe, affordable public transport. In many parts of Lusaka and other urban centres, these conditions remain inconsistent. Without them, the burden of extended hours falls disproportionately on workers who can least afford to absorb the risk.
Compensation structures require equal attention. Shift work, overtime, and unsociable-hours allowances are standard features of labour frameworks in economies with mature 24-hour operations. Zambia’s labour legislation will need to be applied and, where necessary, reviewed and strengthened to ensure that the extension of working hours does not simply become a de facto vehicle of exploitation. Workers must be fairly compensated for the social costs they absorb: disrupted sleep, reduced family time, and the health implications that research consistently links to long-term shift work.
The infrastructure question runs deeper still. A 24-hour economy is, at its foundation, an energy story. Sustained round-the-clock operations require reliable power, and load shedding, which has previously been a persistent feature of Zambia’s electricity landscape, is fundamentally incompatible with the model’s demands. In February 2026, the Ministry of Energy reported available domestic generation of 1,635 MW against national demand of about 2,400 MW. That gap is exactly the kind of constraint that could turn a promising policy into a frustrating slogan if power supply does not improve.
Investments in reliable auxiliary power sources will no longer be optional but will become a vital expense. Alongside energy, digital infrastructure and transport networks must support continuous activity. The standard response to network failure will simply not be good enough, especially at night, when accessing basic services such as transport, cash points or emergency assistance may pose real safety risks. These are not small gaps to close.
When it comes to policy design, implementation and monitoring, the public and private sectors cannot pursue this in parallel silos. The 24-hour economy, if it is to work, requires genuine coordination among ministries responsible for energy, transport, labour, and security; between regulators and businesses; and between employers and the workers whose lives will be most directly shaped by the transition.
What that coordination looks like in practice will vary by sector. For example, mining and manufacturing present different challenges to retail and hospitality. Border operations require different frameworks than those of urban service economies. A one-size-fits-all rollout is unlikely to serve any of these sectors well. A phased, sector-specific implementation, piloted in areas with the strongest infrastructure and clearest demand, is likely to be more durable than a broad declaration of intent.
The 24-hour economy is neither a silver bullet nor an unreachable ideal. It is a model with genuine potential to lift productivity, create employment and strengthen Zambia's economic position, but it also carries genuine risks if pursued without the structural foundations to support it.
The workers who will staff the night shifts, the businesses that will invest in extended operations, and the communities that will absorb the social implications all deserve a transition that is honest and sincere about what it demands of them. The opportunity is real. So too is the work required to earn it.
The clock, as they say, is already running.
