Discussions about poverty and sustainable development often focus on Africa and other developing regions.
These conversations are necessary because poverty, unemployment, inequality, food insecurity and inadequate access to housing, energy, education and healthcare remain urgent challenges across the continent.
However, sustainable development is not an agenda for developing countries alone. Poverty and economic insecurity also persist in some of the wealthiest and most technologically advanced nations.
This raises an important question: How can poverty exist in a land of plenty?
I addressed this question at the Second International Conference on Finance and Sustainable Business, hosted by the Harold Pupkewitz Graduate School of Business at the Namibia University of Science and Technology in Windhoek from 9-10 September.
The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals are universal. Sustainable Development Goal 1 calls for an end to poverty in all its forms everywhere, while the 2030 Agenda commits countries to leaving no one behind.
These commitments apply to Australia, the United States and Germany just as much as they apply to Namibia and other African countries.
Australia is a prosperous country with substantial natural resources, advanced institutions and a strong economy. Nevertheless, the Australian Council of Social Service and the University of New South Wales estimate that approximately 3.7 million Australians, 14.2% of the population, lived below the poverty line after housing costs in 2022–23. This included about 757 000 children.
Housing is central to this problem. Rising rents force low-income households to make difficult decisions between accommodation, food, electricity, transport, healthcare and other essential needs. Housing, therefore, is not simply a property-market issue. It is also a poverty, health, inequality, and sustainable development issue.
A similar contradiction exists in the United States, one of the world’s wealthiest and most technologically advanced economies.
According to the United States Census Bureau, 35.9 million Americans lived in poverty in 2024.
Research from Harvard University’s Joint Centre for Housing Studies also indicates that almost half of American renter households were burdened by housing costs. Food insecurity provides an even more striking example.
Approximately 47.9 million people lived in food-insecure households in the United States in 2024. Food may be available in supermarkets, but availability does not guarantee affordability or access.
Germany demonstrates that poverty is not confined to countries with weaker social-protection systems. According to Germany’s Federal Statistical Office, approximately 13.3 million people or 16.1% of the population, were at risk of poverty in 2025.
Even employment offered no complete protection, with 6.8% of employed people facing the risk of poverty. These figures challenge the assumption that having a job automatically guarantees economic security.
Sustainable Development Goal 8 calls not merely for employment, but for decent work. The real question, therefore is whether work provides an adequate income, stability, affordable housing and the opportunity to live with dignity.
China offers a different but important comparison. It lifted close to 800 million people out of extreme poverty over four decades, demonstrating that poverty can be substantially reduced through deliberate policies, infrastructure, education, employment creation and economic transformation.
However, the continuing urban-rural income gap shows that the development agenda does not end when extreme poverty declines.
These international experiences carry important lessons for Namibia and Africa. As African countries pursue industrialisation, green finance, renewable energy, digital transformation and artificial intelligence, development should not be measured by economic growth alone.
The objective must be to ensure that prosperity translates into meaningful improvements in people’s everyday lives.
Africa can learn from the achievements of developed countries, but it must also learn from the problems those countries have not resolved. Economic growth does not automatically create inclusion.
Technological advancement does not automatically produce social progress. National wealth does not necessarily provide economic security at the household level.
We must move beyond asking how much wealth a country possesses and begin asking how well its people are living, who participates in the economy and how widely opportunities are shared.
The true measure of a land of plenty is not how much it possesses, but how few of its people are forced to live without.
– David Mhlanga is an award-winning economist, researcher and professor based in Australia. His research focuses on sustainable development, poverty and inequality, financial inclusion, FinTech, artificial intelligence and the digital economy, with particular attention to Africa and the Global South. Reach him on: dmhlanga67@gmail.com
