Gambiaj.com – (BANJUL, The Gambia) – The Gambia’s economy can grow while many households continue to struggle to make ends meet. This tension lies at the heart of the country’s cost-of-living debate as the 2026 presidential election approaches. For citizens, economic performance is measured not only by growth rates and official projections but also by whether household incomes can cover food, rent, electricity, transport, and other essential needs.
A LiveGDP.com estimate placing The Gambia’s average monthly net salary at about US$85 has drawn attention to the relationship between earnings and living costs. The figure is worth examining, but it should not be mistaken for a verified national average.
Considered alongside available data on economic growth, inflation, and food security, it raises a broader question: how far is economic expansion translating into improved living conditions?
The answer requires an assessment of both progress and continuing constraints, without allowing political preferences to determine the interpretation of the evidence.
LiveGDP.com ranks The Gambia among African countries with the lowest estimated monthly net salaries. The estimate is striking when set against the cost of food, housing, transport, electricity, education, and healthcare. However, its significance depends on the underlying data, calculation methods, and representativeness of the workers covered.
Without sufficient verification, it is best treated as an indicative measure that warrants further examination, rather than conclusive proof of what Gambian workers earn (LiveGDP.com, Monthly Average Net Salary in Africa).
Growth and household welfare
Economic growth can expand production, encourage investment, create employment, and increase government revenue. Its effect on living standards, however, depends on how widely the benefits are distributed and whether economic activity generates reliable incomes and makes essential goods and services more affordable.
The International Monetary Fund estimated that The Gambia’s economy grew by approximately 6 percent in 2025 and projected growth of 4.7 percent in 2026. It also projected average inflation of 7.5 percent in 2026 (IMF, The Gambia: 2026 Article IV Consultation, 6 July 2026).
These indicators provide important context, but they do not, by themselves, establish whether household welfare is improving at the same pace. Economic expansion can coincide with financial pressure when earnings rise more slowly than the cost of essential goods.
Conversely, a rise in prices does not mean that every household experiences the same degree of hardship. The effects depend on income, employment security, household size, location, and spending needs.
For families with limited or irregular earnings, higher costs for rice, cooking oil, fish, vegetables, transport, and electricity can leave less money for healthcare, education, and other necessities. Some may borrow, reduce consumption, or change the quality of their diets.
Understanding these pressures requires attention not only to national averages but also to differences between households and communities.
The relevant measure of economic progress is therefore whether growth is accompanied by more secure livelihoods and a greater ability to meet essential needs.
Food affordability and the three-meals question
Food security provides a particularly important test of household welfare. The debate over whether Gambians can afford three meals a day has become part of the wider discussion about the cost of living. Some political and public commentary suggests that people are increasingly unable to afford adequate daily meals.
Such concerns merit examination, but the scale of the problem should be established through evidence rather than assumed from individual experiences or political assertions.
The available data point to significant food-affordability challenges and serious hardship among vulnerable groups. They do not establish how many Gambians regularly miss meals, nor do they prove that most of the population cannot afford three meals a day. Meal frequency is also only one aspect of food security: portion sizes, nutritional quality, and the reliability of access to food matter as well.
There have been some encouraging developments in staple food prices. The Food and Agriculture Organization reported that imported rice prices declined by approximately 10 to 15 per cent between April and July 2026, while local maize and millet prices remained broadly stable (FAO, GIEWS Country Brief: The Gambia, September 2026).
These changes may ease pressure on some households, although their overall effect depends on the prices of other necessities and the income available to each family.
The 2025–2026 Gambia Food Security Survey, based on 2,439 households across all eight local government areas, reported that inadequate food consumption affected 16 per cent of households in 2025. It also recorded zero severe hunger under its particular measurement.
These results offer useful evidence about the indicators assessed by the survey, but they should not be interpreted as proof that food insecurity had disappeared (Gambia Bureau of Statistics, The 2025–2026 Gambia Food Security Survey Report).
The survey also found that 32 per cent of households spent more than 65 per cent of their income on food. This leaves a limited share of household resources for rent, electricity, education, healthcare, and other expenses. A family may eat three times a day but still struggle to afford a nutritious diet or meet other essential needs.
Another may reduce portion sizes, rely on less nutritious foods, or skip meals because money is insufficient.
A separate assessment by the Food and Agriculture Organization estimated that approximately 262,000 people, representing 11 percent of the population analyzed, faced severe acute food insecurity during the June–August 2026 lean season, compared with approximately 244,000 during the same period in 2025 (FAO, GIEWS Country Brief: The Gambia, 22 September 2026).
These findings need to be read in context. The national survey’s household food-consumption indicators and the FAO’s estimate of people facing severe acute food insecurity use different measures and reporting periods, so they are not directly comparable.
The survey’s finding of zero severe hunger does not establish that no Gambians experienced acute food insecurity in 2026. Equally, the FAO estimate does not mean that everyone counted missed meals every day.
Taken together, the findings suggest that some food-security indicators improved while substantial vulnerability persisted and that the number of people facing severe acute food insecurity increased during the 2026 lean season. They establish grounds for concern, but they do not settle the precise question of how many people regularly miss meals.
That requires representative data specifically measuring meal frequency, dietary adequacy, and reductions in food consumption caused by financial constraints.
This distinction matters for public debate. Understating hardship can obscure the needs of vulnerable households, while overstating what the evidence establishes can weaken the credibility of legitimate concerns. A sound assessment should recognize both the improvements recorded in some indicators and the difficulties that remain.
From evidence to policy
As the election approaches, competing interpretations of economic performance are inevitable. The government may emphasize growth and improvements in selected indicators, while critics may focus on living costs and household hardship. Neither emphasis, on its own, provides a complete assessment. The appropriate response is to examine the underlying evidence, its limitations, and its implications for public policy.
Economic growth figures cannot independently establish that household welfare is improving across the population. Similarly, a low salary estimate from an online comparison cannot establish the financial circumstances of every Gambian family. A balanced assessment requires reliable information on earnings, employment, prices, household expenditure, and food consumption.
Several policy priorities follow from the evidence. Support for agriculture, fisheries, small businesses, and other productive activities can help generate employment and more reliable incomes. Strengthening domestic food production may improve resilience to external price shocks, although progress depends on investment, infrastructure, distribution, and the costs faced by producers.
Timely monitoring of essential food prices and better household data would also help policymakers identify where pressure is greatest. Where support is needed, programs should be directed towards clearly identified vulnerabilities and assessed according to whether they improve households’ access to adequate food and other necessities.
These are continuing policy responsibilities, not questions that can be resolved by political messaging alone.
The relationship between wages and living costs also deserves sustained attention. Reliable employment and adequate purchasing power benefit households and can support domestic demand. At the same time, wage and income measures need to be considered alongside productivity, business conditions, and the wider cost structure of the economy.
Measuring progress by its effects
The available evidence presents a mixed picture. The Gambia has recorded economic growth, some staple-food prices have eased, and the national food-security survey reported improvement in particular indicators.
At the same time, the large share of household income devoted to food and the FAO’s estimate of increased severe acute food insecurity during the 2026 lean season indicate that serious challenges remain.
The claim that most Gambians cannot afford three meals a day is not established by the figures examined here. But neither do the positive indicators justify dismissing the difficulties faced by households that struggle to obtain sufficient, nutritious food. The more useful question is whether people can meet their food needs consistently without sacrificing other essentials.
This is not a question that can be answered by economic growth figures alone, nor should it be reduced to a contest between competing political narratives. It requires dependable data, transparent interpretation, and policies assessed by their practical effects on people’s lives.
The ultimate measure of economic progress is whether growth is accompanied by more secure livelihoods, affordable necessities, and a greater ability for Gambian households to meet their everyday needs.
Leave a Reply