Lower middle-income countries are those with per capita gross national incomes (GNIs) of between US $ and US $ per year; while upper middle-income countries are those with GNIs between US $ and US $ This status reflects the continued economic growth that has been registered in the recent years.   Zambia’s reclassification as a middle income country would enhance investor confidence and further boost the investment climate thereby creating jobs and wealth for the people. In terms of financing, it should be noted that with the new arrangement, the government would be able to access more non concessional financing which remain key for infrastructure development necessary for economic development. This is in contrast with the previous status whereby Zambia could only access limited concessional financing which attracted very low interest rates and payable after a long time.   Despite the positive reclassification, it should be noted that the disparity between the poor and the rich would always be there and do exist even in developed countries. The challenge for the Government is to implement policies that will redistribute wealth so that inequality is reduced.   Nevertheless, with reclassification, it shows that the Government has been working very hard to accelerate economic growth, which is a necessary for economic development.   On average, people have been pulled out from poverty as per capita income has risen from US $ in 2000 to over US $ in 2010.
Therefore, my first conclusion is that from the economic perspective the dilemma between deepening and enlarging is rather imaginary. In fact, both these processes are going on around us at every moment, and the authorities have a limited ability to choose between these two aspects of integration. The political dimension makes the question much more complex. Despite the aforementioned conclusion that economic integration is relatively independent of political will, an appropriate institutional framework is undoubtedly important for the pace of integration and the future shape of European markets. But politicians are caught between their vision of an integrated Europe and pressure from many of their voters to defend their current positions. Their inability to explain the benefits of integration to the electorate is a source of frustration and puts limits on any further political deepening and enlarging of the more and more economically integrated area. This may lead to a temptation to use the argument of an imaginary choice between deepening and enlarging. But businesses will not ask politicians for permission to move to Balkan countries or Turkey, or to continue concentrating their activities inside the present EU. The role of the authorities is to support, not hamper these processes. Therefore, my second conclusion is that frustration with the inability to politically consolidate the existing area should not become a reason for constraining its political expansion. In the end, business would find its way through, but Europe would lose. BIS Review 50/2006  1