TICGL

| Economic Consulting Group

TICGL | Economic Consulting Group
Menu
Close
The Structural Drivers of Tanzania's Budget Deficit | TICGL Economic Analysis
–3.03% Deficit / GDP (2024)
12.9% Tax-to-GDP Ratio
47.3% Debt-to-GDP (2025)
TZS 7.8T Annual Debt Service

Introduction: A Structural, Not Cyclical, Deficit

Tanzania's budget deficit is not a temporary fiscal imbalance driven by short-term shocks. Rather, it reflects deep structural dynamics within the country's public finance system. Despite consistent improvements in revenue collection — particularly by the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) — the fiscal gap persists at around 3–4% of GDP annually, signaling that the deficit is rooted more in expenditure rigidity, debt dynamics, and institutional fiscal design than in revenue underperformance alone.

This comprehensive analysis examines the paradox at the heart of Tanzania's fiscal challenge: TRA achieves 100.5% to 108.4% of its collection targets, yet the government budget remains structurally inadequate. Three interlocking forces explain this phenomenon — extensive expenditure obligations consuming 68.3% of the budget for recurrent costs, substantial debt servicing absorbing over 16% of revenues, and weak Local Government Authority (LGA) revenues failing to match the scale of economic activities in their jurisdictions.

📉

Narrow Tax Base

Tax-to-GDP at 12.9% vs. 16% SSA average. Every 1pp increase = TZS 2.7–3.0T extra revenue.

🔒

Rigid Recurrent Spending

47.2% of budget committed to wages + interest before a single service is delivered.

⛓

Debt Servicing Drain

TZS 7.8 trillion in annual debt service. For every TZS 6 collected, TZS 1 goes to creditors.

🏘

Weak LGA Revenue

185 LGAs collect only TZS 1.36T/yr, just 2.8% of the national budget, despite hosting 40–50% of GDP activity.

🏗

Ambitious Development Agenda

SGR, JNHPP, Vision 2050 commitments require sustained capital outlay beyond fiscal space.

🔍 Key Finding

Even with TRA collecting TZS 82.6 billion above target in H1 2024/25, Tanzania still faces a budget deficit of 3.4% of GDP — a TZS 1.68 trillion shortfall — demonstrating that revenue performance alone cannot bridge the gap created by structural expenditure pressures.

0

Historical Budget Deficit Trend: Tanzania 1991–2030

Budget Balance as % of GDP — Historical & Projected

Historically, Tanzania's fiscal balance has averaged approximately –3% to –5% of GDP over the past three decades, with peaks of widening deficits during periods of heavy infrastructure investment and external shocks. Early surpluses in the mid-1990s gave way to persistent deficits following liberalization, with the deepest trough in 2010 (–4.74%) following the global recession. Recent fiscal consolidation has narrowed the gap, but structural forces keep it above the EAC's 3% convergence criterion.

Tanzania Budget Balance as % of GDP (1991–2030)
Negative = Deficit · EAC Criterion: –3.0% · Projected values shown with dashed line

Recent years show a pattern of structural persistence rather than cyclical volatility:

2022
–3.92%
Post-pandemic recovery spending widened gap
2023
–3.67%
Above EAC 3% threshold
2024
–3.03%
Modest improvement; still above EAC
2025–26
~–3.0%
Projected target — structurally challenging
Table 1 — Tanzania Budget Balance (% of GDP), 1991–2030
YearBudget Balance (% GDP)TrendPeriod Context
1991+0.61%▲ SurplusPre-liberalization
1992–4.96%▼ DeficitLiberalization shock
1996+1.57%▲ SurplusESAP stabilization
2004–2.43%▼ DeficitInfrastructure push
2009–4.46%▼ DeficitGlobal recession
2010–4.74%▼ DeepestPost-recession spending
2017–1.14%▲ NarrowestRevenue reforms
2022–3.92%▼ DeficitCOVID-19 recovery
2023–3.67%▼ DeficitExpenditure pressure
2024–3.03%~ StableConsolidation
2025 (proj.)–2.98%▲ ImprovingFiscal reform
2026 (proj.)–3.02%~ StableBudget expansion risk
2027–30 (proj.)~–3.0%~ FlatStructural floor
⚠ EAC Benchmark

The East African Community (EAC) sets a maximum fiscal deficit of 3% of GDP as a convergence criterion. Tanzania has exceeded this threshold in 2021/22, 2022/23, and 2024/25, reflecting the structural nature of the fiscal gap.

1

Revenue Performance: Strong but Structurally Insufficient

TRA Exceeds Targets — Yet the Fiscal Gap Persists

Over the past two fiscal years, revenue performance has improved significantly. The Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) exceeded annual targets by approximately 3–4 percent. Yet this achievement conceals a deeper paradox: the national revenue base itself remains structurally narrow relative to the size of government commitments.

TRA Revenue Collection vs. Targets — Recent Fiscal Years
TZS Trillion · Shows consistent overperformance while deficit persists
Table 2 — TRA Revenue Collection Performance
PeriodTarget (TZS T / B)Actual CollectionAchievementAbove Target
FY 2023/24 (Full Year)TZS 28.9TTZS 29.8T103.1%+TZS 0.9T
FY 2024/25 (Full Year)TZS 31.5TTZS 32.26T103.0%+TZS 0.76T
July 2024 (Monthly)TZS 2.247TTZS 2.347T104.5%+TZS 100B
January 2025 (Monthly)~TZS 3.57TTZS 3,877B108.6%+TZS 307B
H1 2024/25 (Jul–Dec)TZS 14,874.9BTZS 15,111.6B101.6%+TZS 236.7B
May 2025 (Monthly)~TZS 2.79TTZS 2,880B103.1%+TZS 86.9B
⚡ The Core Paradox

Even in January 2025 — when TRA achieved 108.6% of its monthly target — total revenues could not cover expenditure of TZS 3,806B, and the annual deficit remained at 3.4% of GDP. The structural gap is expenditure-driven, not a revenue collection failure.

The Tax-to-GDP Structural Gap

The core structural issue lies in Tanzania's tax-to-GDP ratio, which remains at approximately 12–13 percent. This falls short of multiple key benchmarks:

Tax-to-GDP Ratio: Tanzania vs. Benchmarks
Tanzania's structural revenue gap relative to regional and global standards
Tanzania (Current) 12.9%
Sub-Saharan Africa Average ~16%
Minimum Efficiency Benchmark 15%
Long-term Fiscal Sustainability Target 18%
Tanzania TRA Target (2027) 15%

Note: Bar width scaled proportionally to 26.4% upper bound for display clarity.

📐 Revenue Gap Calculation
Nominal GDP (2026 est.) ≈ TZS 275 Trillion
Every +1pp in tax-to-GDP = TZS 2.7–3.0 Trillion in additional revenue
Current gap below 15% benchmark ≈ 2.1 percentage points
⟹ Structural revenue shortfall = TZS 5.7–6.3 Trillion annually

Therefore, even when TRA exceeds its internal targets, the national revenue base itself remains structurally narrow relative to the size of government commitments. Closing this gap requires formalizing the informal economy — estimated at 50–65% of GDP and outside the tax net — rather than merely improving compliance within the existing base.

Table 3 — Tanzania vs. EAC/SSA Fiscal Benchmarks
IndicatorTanzania (2024/25)BenchmarkGapStatus
Tax-to-GDP Ratio12.9%15% minimum–2.1 pts⚠ Below target
Budget Deficit3.4% of GDP3% (EAC)+0.4 pts⚠ Above EAC
Debt-to-GDP47.3%55% max14.4% buffer✅ Within limit
Interest Payments (% Revenue)>16%<10% ideal+6 pts🔴 High burden
Development Expenditure %31.3%30–35%On target✅ On target
Wage Bill % of Budget32.5%<35%Near ceiling⚠ Near limit
2

Recurrent Expenditure Rigidity

Non-Discretionary Spending Locks in the Fiscal Gap

A central structural driver of the deficit is the dominance of recurrent expenditure in the national budget. In FY2024/25, recurrent expenditure accounted for approximately 65–69% of total spending, leaving limited space for development investment or fiscal adjustment.

FY2024/25 Budget Composition — Where the Money Goes
TZS Trillion · Total Budget: TZS 30.19 Trillion (expenditure)
Table 4 — Tanzania Expenditure Breakdown FY2024/25 vs FY2025/26
CategoryFY2024/25 (TZS T)% of TotalFY2025/26 (TZS T)Nature
Recurrent Expenditure20.7568.7%38.6Non-discretionary
  — Wages & Salaries9.8332.5%~12.5🔒 Fixed / Political
  — Interest Payments4.4514.7%~5.0🔒 Contractual
  — Other Charges~6.4721.4%~21.1Partially flexible
Development Expenditure9.4431.3%16.4Policy-driven
TOTAL EXPENDITURE30.19100%~55.0—
⚡ Critical Finding

47.2% of the entire budget (wages TZS 9.83T + interest payments TZS 4.45T = TZS 14.28T) is committed to fixed obligations before any government services are delivered or development projects funded. This leaves only 52.8% for operations, social services, and development — creating constant fiscal pressure.

Table 5 — Mandatory & Committed Expenditure Items FY2024/25
Expenditure TypeAmount (TZS T)Reason It's Mandatory
Wages & Salaries (32.5%)9.83Public sector employment; politically sensitive — not reducible short-term
Debt Servicing (14.7%)4.45Contractual obligations; defaulting has severe credit & reputation consequences
Development Budget Mandate (31.3%)9.44Government policy commits 30–40% to development for growth targets
Fee-free Education Policy~3.0Constitutional commitment; essential social service
Infrastructure (SGR, JNHPP)~5.0Vision 2025/2050 multi-year contracts already signed
Elections (2024/2025)~1.0Constitutional requirement — unavoidable

This means that nearly half of all government expenditure (wages + interest) is effectively non-discretionary. When fixed obligations consume nearly 47–50% of the budget before service delivery expansion or new development priorities are considered, fiscal flexibility becomes structurally constrained. Any increase in revenue tends to be absorbed by rising wage costs, inflation-indexed spending, or debt servicing adjustments.

📐 The Budget Equation — Why Revenue Success ≠ Fiscal Adequacy
Revenue Available: TZS 28.12 Trillion
minus Wages (9.83T) + Interest (4.45T) + Other Recurrent (6.47T)
= Remaining: TZS 7.37 Trillion
BUT required: Development (9.44T) + Elections + Social Programs = TZS 11+ Trillion
⟹ STRUCTURAL DEFICIT: TZS 3.63+ Trillion (3.4% of GDP)
Data Sources: Ministry of Finance and Planning (Tanzania), Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) Monthly Reports, Bank of Tanzania (BoT), PO-RALG LGA Revenue Reports, IMF Article IV Consultation (2025), World Bank Tanzania Economic Updates. | Period: FY2022/23–FY2026/27 (projected). | Compiled by: TICGL Research Division, February 2025.
Tanzania Budget Deficit — Debt, LGA Revenue & FY2026/27 Outlook | TICGL
TICGL Economic Analysis · Continued

The Structural Drivers of
Tanzania's Budget Deficit

Sections 3–6 · Debt Servicing · LGA Revenue Gap · Development Commitments · FY2026/27 Outlook · Policy Recommendations
3

Rising Debt Servicing Burden

How Borrowed Yesterday Crowds Out Tomorrow

Public debt dynamics represent one of the most acute structural pressures on Tanzania's fiscal position. As debt stock has grown to finance infrastructure and development programs, servicing obligations have expanded to the point where they now consume a significant and growing share of government revenue — creating a self-reinforcing constraint on fiscal space.

TZS 125.5T
Total Public Debt (March 2025)
47.3% of GDP
>16%
Interest-to-Revenue Ratio
Ideal benchmark: <10%
TZS 7.8T
Annual Debt Service FY2026/27
Up ~13% year-on-year
30–35%
Revenue Absorbed in Peak Quarters
By debt servicing alone
Table 6 — Tanzania Public Debt Structure (March 2025)
Debt IndicatorAmount / ValueFiscal Impact
Total Public DebtTZS 125.55 trillion47.3% of GDP — below 55% EAC threshold
Domestic DebtTZS 34.26 trillion28.7% of total debt; interest rate 8–10%
External DebtUSD 34.1 billion71.3% of total debt; rate 1–4% (concessional)
Annual Interest Payments (FY2024/25)TZS 4.45 trillion14.7% of total expenditure; 16%+ of revenue
Domestic Interest Payments (Annual)TZS 5.31 trillionCrowds out private sector credit growth
External Debt ServicingUSD 1–2 billion/yearExchange rate vulnerability risk
Debt Service (Total FY2026/27 proj.)TZS 7.8 trillion12.6% of proposed TZS 61.9T budget
Debt Servicing as % of Revenues — FY2022/23 to FY2026/27
Escalating share of revenues diverted to creditors · TZS Trillion
Table 7 — Debt Servicing Trend: Revenue Absorption FY2022/23–2026/27
Fiscal YearTotal Debt Service (TZS T)As % of RevenuesAs % of Budget ExpenditureTrend
FY 2022/239.0928.5%22.1%↑ Rising
FY 2023/2410.2031.0%24.5%↑ Rising
FY 2024/25 (proj.)11.5034.0%26.0%↑ Rising
FY 2025/26 (est.)~6.9~18%~12.5%~ Stable
FY 2026/27 (proj.)7.80~16.7%12.6%↑ Rising
⛓ Crowding-Out Effect

High domestic borrowing — accounting for 60% of deficit financing — raises domestic interest rates and reduces private sector credit growth from 15% (2010s) to ~10% post-2020. Funds that could be allocated to education, health, or infrastructure are diverted to creditors. Even if revenues grow by 20–25% annually, debt service obligations grow proportionally, limiting net fiscal space creation.

Table 8 — Debt Sustainability Assessment FY2025/26 → FY2026/27
Debt MetricFY2025/26 ValueFY2026/27 ProjectedSustainability Assessment
Debt-to-GDP Ratio40.6%~39.5% (Declining)Low Risk — below 55%
Annual Debt Service (TZS T)~7.07.8Manageable (15–20% of rev.)
Borrowing Composition50% concessionalPrioritizedStable — minimizes costs
Interest-to-Revenue Ratio>16%~16.7%High — ideal is <10%
External Debt Service (USD)USD 1–2B/yrUSD ~1.5BFX exposure risk
📐 Debt Service Impact Calculation
For every TZS 100 collected by TRA:
→ TZS 16 immediately goes to interest payments
→ Only TZS 84 available for wages, services, development
Annual interest (TZS 4.45T) vs. development spending (TZS 9.44T) = 47% ratio
⟹ Nearly half of all development investment is "cost" before any project begins
4

Structural Weakness in LGA Revenue Mobilization

Local Government Authorities Collect Only a Fraction of What Their Economies Generate

A further structural driver of the national budget deficit lies in fiscal centralization and weak own-source revenue at the Local Government Authority (LGA) level. Tanzania's 185 LGAs (districts and councils) generate own-source revenues far below the scale of local economic activities, creating a dependency on central government transfers that reinforces national fiscal pressure.

TRA — Central Revenue

TZS 15.1T
Collected in 6 months (H1 2024/25) · 101.6% of target

185 LGAs Combined — Local Revenue

TZS 697.8B
Collected in same 6 months · 103.5% of target
Just 4.6% of TRA's collection despite hosting vast economic activity
LGA Revenue vs. TRA — The Scale Mismatch
TZS Trillion · All 185 LGAs combined vs. TRA · H1 FY2024/25
Table 9 — LGA Own-Source Revenue Performance
PeriodLGA Collection (TZS B)Target AchievementShare of Total Domestic Revenue
Q2 FY2024/25 (Oct–Dec)342.199.2%~2.0%
H1 FY2024/25 (Jul–Dec)697.8103.5%4.0% of TRA total
FY2023/24 (Annual)1,132102.9%3.5% of domestic revenue
FY2024/25 Target (Annual)1,360100% target2.8% of national budget
FY2025/26 Target (Annual)1,680100% target3.0% of national budget
Table 10 — Economic Activity in LGA Jurisdictions vs. Revenue Captured (FY2023/24)
SectorActivity in LGAs% of National GDPRevenue Capture Challenge
Agriculture & LivestockMajority in rural LGAs; TZS 20–30T annual value24.5–26.5%Informal sector; limited taxation capacity; <TZS 5B/LGA
Wholesale & Retail TradeMarkets, shops, street vendors across 185 LGAs18.2%Low license fees; weak enforcement
ConstructionBuilding permits issued at LGA level13.2%Under-collection of permit fees
Informal EconomyStreet trade, small-scale farming, boda-boda~50%Entirely outside tax net; only 20% of potential taxes realized
Property / LandTransfers, rentals across all LGAsSignificantWeak property tax system; outdated valuations
Mining (small-scale)Artisanal mining in multiple LGAs9% totalLarge mines pay central govt (TRA), not LGAs

Root Causes of LGA Revenue Weakness

📋

Narrow Revenue Base

LGAs are restricted to licenses, permits, and market fees — unable to capture VAT, income tax, or corporate tax, all of which flow to TRA.

📅

Outdated By-Laws

Many LGAs still use 2012 bylaws with fees too low relative to current inflation. A market stall permit may still cost what it did a decade ago.

💻

No Digital Systems

Unlike TRA's EFD (Electronic Fiscal Devices), most LGAs use manual collection — creating leakage, fraud, and no audit trail.

🗳

Political Constraints

Locally elected officials face voter resistance to fee increases, creating political disincentives to improve revenue mobilization.

👥

Staff Capacity Gaps

Insufficient revenue officers across 185 LGAs cannot monitor all economic activities; internal controls remain weak per CAG findings.

⚖️

Structural Imbalance

LGAs are mandated to deliver primary education, health, local roads, and water — costs that far exceed their revenue capacity, forcing dependency on central grants.

Table 11 — LGA Fiscal Reality and National Budget Impact
LGA Fiscal IndicatorValue / Impact
LGA own-source revenue (annual)TZS 1.36 trillion (2.8% of national budget)
LGA total budget (incl. central transfers)TZS 15.8 trillion (48% of recurrent spending)
Central government grants to LGAsTZS 4.66 trillion added pressure on national budget
LGA dependency on central transfers80–90% of LGA budgets
Potential digital reform gains+30% boost in LGA collections (World Bank est.)
Economic activities in LGA jurisdictionsAgriculture (26.5% GDP), trade, construction, services
Revenue realized from local economic activities<5% of potential — only 20% of taxes realized
⚠ Structural Mismatch

Local Government Authorities preside over billions of shillings in economic transactions daily — agriculture, trade, construction, services — yet collect only TZS 1.36 trillion annually across all 185 LGAs. That is less than 5% of TRA's collection. This forces the central government to fund both national and local functions, adding TZS 4.66 trillion to the national fiscal burden and reinforcing the deficit.

LGA Revenue: Current vs. Reform Potential (TZS Trillion)
Estimated gains from digital systems, by-law updates and capacity building
5

Expansionary Development Commitments

Vision 2050 Ambitions vs. Available Fiscal Space

Tanzania has pursued an ambitious development agenda including the Standard Gauge Railway (SGR), Julius Nyerere Hydropower Project (JNHPP), strategic industrialization, and the long-term Vision 2050 goals. These commitments require sustained capital expenditure that consistently pushes total spending beyond what domestic revenues can support — a key structural contributor to the persistent deficit.

Table 12 — Major Development Commitments and Fiscal Impact
Project / CommitmentEstimated CostFiscal ImpactStatus
Standard Gauge Railway (SGR)USD 7.6B+ totalMulti-year debt obligations; ~TZS 2–3T/yr🔄 Ongoing
Julius Nyerere Hydropower Project (2,115 MW)USD 2.9 billionTZS 7.4T in FY2026/27 borrowing for dev. projects incl. JNHPP🔄 Nearing completion
LNG Development (Lindi)USD 30B+ (long-term)Infrastructure investment; potential future revenue🟡 Planning stage
AFCON 2027 PreparationsAllocated in budgetStadium & infrastructure; one-time international commitment🔄 Ongoing
Fee-Free Education Policy~TZS 3.0T/yrPermanent recurrent commitment; cannot be reversed🔒 Permanent
Vision 2050 IndustrializationLong-termSEZ, EPZ, industrial parks — sustained capital outlay🔄 Multi-decade
📌 Structural Tension

While GDP growth is projected at 6.3% real growth in 2026, and domestic revenue is expected to rise to TZS 46.7 trillion, grants are projected to decline by nearly 44.8% to just TZS 563.1 billion — increasing reliance on domestic resources and borrowing. Without structural reform, expansion risks pushing the deficit beyond the targeted 3% of GDP if growth assumptions or revenue projections underperform.

6

FY2026/27 Budget Expansion: Sustainability Assessment

Is the Proposed 10% Expansion Fiscally Sustainable?
🔭

The Proposed Expansion: TZS 61.9–61.93 Trillion (+9.6%)

Tanzania's proposed FY2026/27 budget represents a historic 9.6% expansion from TZS 56.49 trillion in FY2025/26 — aligning with Vision 2050 goals for industrialization and infrastructure. This section assesses whether this expansion is fiscally sustainable given Tanzania's structural fiscal constraints.

Table 13 — Tanzania Budget Size and Growth Trajectory
Fiscal YearBudget (TZS Trillion)% Change YoYAs % of Nominal GDP
FY2021/22~42.0—~19.0%
FY2022/23~43.5+3.6%~19.5%
FY2023/2444.4+2.1%~19.8%
FY2024/2550.29+13.3%~21.4%
FY2025/2656.49+12.3%~22.0%
FY2026/27 (Proposed)61.9–61.93+9.6%~22.5%
Tanzania Budget Expansion Trajectory FY2021/22 – FY2026/27
TZS Trillion · Showing accelerating expenditure growth
Table 14 — Revenue Projections: FY2025/26 vs. FY2026/27
Revenue SourceFY2025/26 (TZS T)FY2026/27 Projected (TZS T)% ChangeShare of Budget
Domestic Revenue (Total)38.946.69+20.0%75.4%
  — Tax Revenue (TRA)29.1736.9+26.5%59.6%
  — Other Revenues9.739.24–5.0%14.9%
Grants from Development Partners1.020.563–44.8%0.9%
Total Borrowing15.015.24+1.6%24.6%
Total Budget Financing~55.061.9+9.6%100%
Table 15 — FY2026/27 Expenditure and Deficit Implications
CategoryFY2026/27 Allocation (TZS T)% of BudgetKey Notes
Recurrent Expenditures~46.7 (estimated)~75%Public sector wage bill up ~15% historically
Development Expenditures~7.4 (borrowing portion)~12%Infrastructure: LNG, SGR, JNHPP continuation
Debt Servicing7.812.6%Stable but rising ~13% YoY
Overall Deficit Target~3% of GDPN/ARelies on 6.3% GDP growth; risk of widening to 3.5–4%
Table 16 — FY2026/27 Fiscal Risk Assessment
Risk FactorPotential Impact on DeficitRisk LevelMitigation
Declining Grants (–44.8%)+0.5–1.0% GDP wideningHighBoost TRA to 18% tax-to-GDP
Climate Shocks (Agriculture: 26% GDP)Revenue shortfalls 5–10%HighDiversify exports; build contingency reserves
Post-2025 Election UncertaintyFDI drop ~10%; investment slowdownMediumPrivate sector partnerships (70% of FYDP IV)
Global Commodity Price VolatilityInflation up 2–3%; import costs riseMediumMaintain ~3% deficit cap as fiscal anchor
Revenue Projection UnderperformanceTRA target miss → deficit wideningMediumMulti-year medium-term expenditure framework
Wage Bill OverrunExceeds 35% of budget ceilingMediumStrict payroll controls; freeze new hiring
FY2026/27 Revenue vs. Expenditure — Three Scenarios
Base case vs. optimistic vs. stress scenario · TZS Trillion
⚠ Sustainability Verdict

The FY2026/27 expansion is conditionally sustainable if revenues hit targets and GDP growth sustains at 6.3%. However, a combination of declining grants (–44.8%), rising debt service (+13% YoY), and historical patterns of spending overruns creates meaningful risk of slippage above the 3% deficit target. The structural gap remains unless tax-to-GDP rises by at least 1–2 percentage points and LGA revenue mobilization is accelerated.

✦

Conclusion & Policy Recommendations

Addressing the Root Causes — Not Just the Symptoms

A Structural, Not Cyclical, Deficit

Tanzania's budget deficit cannot be solved through revenue collection improvements alone. The paradox of TRA consistently exceeding targets while the budget remains inadequate reveals a fundamental mismatch: the country's ambitious development agenda, legacy debt obligations, and insufficient revenue mobilization at the local government level create a recurring fiscal gap of approximately TZS 3–7 trillion annually — equivalent to around 3% of GDP.

Five structural forces sustain this gap regardless of TRA's performance: (1) a tax base too narrow at 12.9% of GDP, (2) 47.2% of the budget locked in non-discretionary wages and interest before services begin, (3) rising debt service consuming 30–35% of revenues in peak quarters, (4) 185 LGAs collecting only 2.8% of the national budget despite hosting over 40% of GDP, and (5) multi-decade development commitments exceeding available fiscal space.

12.9% tax-to-GDP → target 15–18% 47.2% non-discretionary spending TZS 7.8T annual debt service 185 LGAs = 2.8% of budget only TZS 61.9T proposed FY2026/27

Policy Recommendations

💰

Revenue-Side Reforms

Accelerate tax-to-GDP ratio from 12.9% to 15% target by 2027 through broadening the base, not just improving compliance in the existing base.
Formalize the informal sector — estimated at 65% of the workforce and currently outside the tax net — through tiered presumptive tax systems and digital registration incentives.
Expand IDRAS (Integrated Domestic Revenue Administration System) nationwide to reduce leakage, improve compliance, and create a real-time fiscal monitoring framework.
Target tax-to-GDP of 18% as a long-term fiscal sustainability goal, which would generate an additional TZS 14–15 trillion annually at 2026 nominal GDP levels.
✂️

Expenditure-Side Reforms

Restructure domestic debt to reduce the interest burden from over 16% to below 10% of revenue, shifting to longer-tenor concessional instruments where possible.
Implement strict wage bill controls to prevent exceeding the 35% of budget ceiling — particularly as FY2026/27 proposes a further 15% wage bill increase.
Prioritize high-return development projects that generate future revenue (energy, ports, tourism infrastructure) over prestige projects with limited fiscal multipliers.
Cut non-essential recurrent expenditures by 10% through procurement rationalization, subsidy review, and operational efficiency gains.
🏘

Local Government Revenue Reforms

Expand LGA revenue sources beyond market fees and business licenses — introduce property tax systems, service fees aligned with economic activities, and tourism levies.
Update LGA bylaws across all 185 councils with realistic fee structures that reflect current inflation and economic values (many still use 2012 rates).
Implement digital revenue collection systems in all 185 LGAs — World Bank estimates this alone could boost LGA collections by 30%, adding TZS 400–500 billion annually.
Strengthen internal audit and control systems to prevent fraud and revenue leakage identified by the Controller and Auditor General (CAG) in successive annual reports.
📅

Medium-Term Fiscal Planning

Adopt a credible medium-term expenditure framework (MTEF) with budgets averaging TZS 68 trillion/year through 2028/29, anchored to realistic revenue projections rather than optimistic targets.
Maintain the EAC 3% deficit ceiling as a hard fiscal rule, with automatic expenditure adjustments triggered if revenue underperforms by more than 5%.
Focus on concessional debt for major projects to minimize borrowing costs — the current 1–3% rate on 25–40 year external loans versus 8–10% on domestic debt represents a significant fiscal advantage.
Build a fiscal stabilization reserve of at least 0.5% of GDP to buffer against climate shocks, commodity price swings, and other external vulnerabilities.
Table 17 — Summary: Five Structural Drivers & Required Reforms
Structural DriverCurrent StateTarget / ReformFiscal Impact if Achieved
Narrow Tax Base12.9% tax-to-GDP15–18% tax-to-GDP by 2027–2030+TZS 5.7–14T additional annual revenue
Recurrent Expenditure Rigidity47.2% of budget non-discretionaryWage bill below 35%; interest below 10% of revenue+TZS 2–4T fiscal space released
Rising Debt Service16%+ of revenue; TZS 7.8T FY2026/27Debt restructuring; concessional focus; below 10% of revenueDeficit narrows by 0.5–1.0% of GDP
Weak LGA RevenueTZS 1.36T/yr (2.8% of budget)Digital systems + bylaw updates → +30%+TZS 400–500B; reduce central transfers
Excessive Development CommitmentsExceeds fiscal space annuallyMTEF prioritization; high-return project focusDeficit stabilized at 2.5–3.0% of GDP
✅ Final Assessment

Tanzania's budget deficit challenge is not a failure of revenue collection — TRA consistently exceeds targets and demonstrates strong institutional capacity. Rather, it reflects a fundamental mismatch between the country's ambitious development agenda, legacy debt obligations, and insufficient revenue mobilization at the local government level. Without structural reforms addressing all five drivers simultaneously, even perfect tax collection will not close the budget gap. The solution requires both expanding the revenue base and rationalizing expenditure priorities, while managing debt more sustainably — and this analysis provides the roadmap for how Tanzania can achieve fiscal sustainability by FY2028/29.

Data Sources: Ministry of Finance and Planning (Tanzania), Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) Monthly & Annual Reports, Bank of Tanzania (BoT), PO-RALG LGA Revenue Reports, IMF Article IV Consultation (2025), World Bank Tanzania Economic Updates, Controller and Auditor General (CAG) Annual Reports. | Period covered: FY2022/23–FY2026/27 (projected). | Compiled by: TICGL Research Division — Tanzania Investment and Consultant Group Ltd, February 2025.
About the Authors — Tanzania Budget Deficit Analysis | TICGL
✦ About the Authors
✍

Research Authors

Tanzania Investment and Consultant Group Ltd (TICGL) · Economic Research Division

BK🎓
Lead Author
Dr. Bravious Felix Kahyoza
PhD FMVA® CP3P
Chief Economist and Research Director · TICGL

Dr. Bravious Felix Kahyoza is a distinguished economist and public finance specialist with a doctorate in Economics. He holds the Financial Modeling & Valuation Analyst (FMVA®) designation and the Certified Public-Private Partnership Professional (CP3P) certification — making him one of Tanzania's foremost authorities on fiscal policy, infrastructure financing, and development economics.

His research focuses on the structural drivers of fiscal deficits in Sub-Saharan Africa, public debt sustainability, revenue mobilization reform, and the design of PPP frameworks for major infrastructure investments including the Standard Gauge Railway, Julius Nyerere Hydropower Project, and Tanzania's LNG development pipeline. Dr. Kahyoza contributes to policy dialogues with the Ministry of Finance, Bank of Tanzania, and international partners including the IMF and World Bank.

Public Finance & Fiscal Policy Debt Sustainability Analysis Infrastructure Financing (PPP) Revenue Mobilization Tanzania Macroeconomics Financial Modeling (FMVA) East Africa Development Economics
TICGL — Tanzania Investment and Consultant Group Ltd Principal Research Fellow · Economic Policy & Fiscal Analysis
AB📊
Co-Author
Amran Bhuzohera
Economic Analyst TICGL Researcher
Senior Economic Research Analyst · TICGL Research Division

Amran Bhuzohera is an Senior Economic Research Analyst at TICGL with deep expertise in Tanzanian public finance data, fiscal budget analysis, and LGA revenue mobilization. He specializes in translating complex macroeconomic and fiscal datasets — from TRA reports, Ministry of Finance budget execution documents, and Bank of Tanzania statistical releases — into structured, accessible economic intelligence for investors, policymakers, and development partners.

His analytical contributions to this study include the comprehensive quantitative modelling of Tanzania's budget deficit paradox, the LGA revenue gap analysis across all 185 local authorities, and the FY2026/27 budget expansion sustainability assessment. Amran is a core member of TICGL's Tanzania Business Intelligence Dashboard team, contributing to the platform's real-time fiscal and economic data infrastructure at data.ticgl.com.

Tanzania Fiscal Data Analysis LGA Revenue Mobilization Budget Execution Analysis TRA Revenue Performance Economic Intelligence Data Visualization Tanzania Investment Research
TICGL — Tanzania Investment and Consultant Group Ltd Senior Economic Research Analyst · Business Intelligence & Fiscal Analysis
🏛

Tanzania Investment and Consultant Group Ltd (TICGL)

TICGL is Tanzania's premier economic research, investment intelligence, and business consulting firm. The TICGL Research Division produces independent, data-driven analyses on Tanzania's macroeconomic landscape, fiscal policy, investment climate, and sector-specific opportunities — serving investors, development finance institutions, government agencies, and multinational corporations operating across East Africa.

Economic Research Investment Intelligence Fiscal Policy Analysis Business Consulting Tanzania · East Africa ticgl.com

📋 Research Methodology & Data Sources

This analysis draws on official data from the Ministry of Finance and Planning (Tanzania), Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA) monthly and annual revenue reports, Bank of Tanzania (BoT) monetary and fiscal statistics, PO-RALG Local Government Revenue reports, Controller and Auditor General (CAG) annual audit reports, IMF Article IV Consultation reports (2024–2025), and World Bank Tanzania Economic Updates. Budget deficit historical data (1991–2030) is sourced from Statista based on IMF and World Bank databases, with projections for 2025–2030 assuming 5–6% annual GDP growth and continued fiscal consolidation. All monetary values are in Tanzanian Shillings (TZS) unless otherwise stated.

📌 Cite This Analysis

Kahyoza, B.F. & Bhuzohera, A. (2025). The Structural Drivers of Tanzania's Budget Deficit. Tanzania Investment and Consultant Group Ltd (TICGL) Economic Research Division. Retrieved from https://ticgl.com/structural-drivers-of-tanzanias-budget-deficit/
📢 Share This Analysis
✅ Copied!

The 8% depreciation of the Tanzanian shilling (TZS) in 2023 significantly impacts Tanzania’s external debt servicing, particularly since 68.9% of its external debt is denominated in USD. With Tanzania’s external debt reaching 34,056 USD Million (approximately TZS 91.29 trillion at an exchange rate of TZS 2,677/USD in March 2025), the depreciation increases the local currency cost of servicing USD-denominated debt, straining fiscal resources and limiting budgetary space for development priorities. Below, I explore the potential risks of this depreciation, supported by figures and calculations, focusing on debt servicing costs, fiscal space, and broader economic implications.

1. Increased Debt Servicing Costs in Local Currency

The 8% shilling depreciation in 2023 (from approximately TZS 2,315/USD at the end of 2022 to TZS 2,500/USD by the end of 2023) directly raises the cost of servicing USD-denominated debt in local currency terms. Since 68.9% of Tanzania’s external debt is USD-denominated, this affects a significant portion of the debt stock.

This increased cost directly reduces fiscal space, as debt servicing already absorbs ~40% of government expenditures (approximately TZS 19.74 trillion of the TZS 49.35 trillion FY 2024/25 budget).

2. Strain on Fiscal Space

The higher local currency cost of debt servicing due to depreciation limits Tanzania’s ability to fund critical sectors like health, education, and infrastructure, exacerbating fiscal pressures.

3. Pressure on Foreign Exchange Reserves

The shilling’s depreciation exacerbates Tanzania’s foreign exchange constraints, as servicing USD-denominated debt requires more USD, straining reserves.

4. Broader Economic Risks

The shilling’s depreciation amplifies economic vulnerabilities, particularly in the context of global and domestic pressures.

5. Mitigating Factors

Despite these risks, Tanzania’s debt profile remains sustainable, mitigating some impacts of depreciation:

Quantitative Summary

Conclusion

The 8% shilling depreciation in 2023 increases Tanzania’s USD-denominated debt servicing costs by TZS 4.34 trillion for the 23,465 USD Million debt stock, adding TZS 185–260 billion annually to servicing costs. This strains fiscal space, consuming ~40% of government expenditures and limiting social and development spending. Foreign exchange reserve pressures and inflationary risks further complicate the economic outlook, though concessional loans and strong GDP growth (6% in 2025) mitigate distress risks. Continued depreciation or global economic challenges could exacerbate these risks, necessitating prudent fiscal and monetary policies.

This table quantifies the impact of the 8% shilling depreciation in 2023 on Tanzania’s external debt servicing, highlighting increased costs (TZS 4.34 trillion for USD-denominated debt), fiscal strain (crowding out 13–19% of health spending), and reserve pressures (17.5–35% of reserves).

MetricValue (USD Million or TZS Trillion)Reference YearNotes
Total External Debt (Mar 2025)34,056 USD MillionMar 2025TZS 91.29 trillion at TZS 2,677/USD
USD-Denominated Debt (68.9%)23,465 USD MillionMar 2025TZS 62.83 trillion at TZS 2,677/USD
USD-Denominated Debt Value (2022)TZS 54.32 trillion2022At TZS 2,315/USD (pre-depreciation)
USD-Denominated Debt Value (2023)TZS 58.66 trillion2023At TZS 2,500/USD (post-8% depreciation)
Servicing Cost Increase (2023)TZS 4.34 trillion (USD 1,736 M)2023Due to 8% depreciation for USD debt
Annual External Debt ServiceUSD 1,000–2,000 Million2024/25TZS 2.68–5.35 trillion at TZS 2,677/USD
USD Debt Service (68.9%)USD 689–1,378 Million2024/25TZS 1.84–3.69 trillion at TZS 2,677/USD
Additional Annual Servicing CostTZS 185–260 billion (USD 74–104 M)2023Due to 8% depreciation (TZS 2,315 to 2,500/USD)
Fiscal Space Impact (Health Budget)13–19%2024/25Additional cost vs. TZS 1.4 trillion health budget
Fiscal Space Impact (Education Budget)4–6%2024/25Additional cost vs. TZS 4.2 trillion education budget
Government Expenditure (FY 2024/25)TZS 49.35 trillion (USD 18,400 M)2024/25Debt service absorbs ~40% (TZS 19.74 trillion)
Foreign Exchange ReservesUSD 5,700 Million20253.8 months of import cover
Debt Service as % of Reserves17.5–35%2024/25USD 1–2 billion service consumes reserves
Additional USD DemandUSD 74–104 Million2023Due to 8% depreciation for USD debt service
Shilling Depreciation (2024/25)2.6%2024/25Adds TZS 1.62 trillion to USD debt value
Inflation Rate (2023)4.1%2023Up from 3.8% in 2022, driven by depreciation
Fiscal Deficit (2022/23)3.8% of GDP2022/23Projected to rise to 4% in 2025/26
Debt-to-GDP Ratio (2025)~32–35%2025External debt, GDP ~USD 100 billion
Concessional Debt Share53.9% (USD 18,300 M)Jan 2025Lowers servicing costs (0.75–2% interest)

Notes:

crossmenu linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram