- Ghana’s 18th-Place Revenue Ranking Exposes a Stubborn Fiscal Gap
A low share of national output flowing into public revenue limits room for investment and services, but matching regional averages would require more than a quick tax drive.
Ghana’s position near the bottom half of a 25-country Sub-Saharan African revenue ranking poses a hard question for policymakers: as the economy grows, can the state reliably raise enough money to meet its obligations without leaning repeatedly on new taxes or borrowing?
The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) puts Ghana 18th, with total revenue and grants at 15.7 per cent of gross domestic product in 2022. The average for the countries in its sample was 20.1 per cent, a gap of 4.4 percentage points.
Namibia recorded 31.3 per cent, Seychelles 30 per cent and Botswana 29.5 per cent. The figures measure revenue and grants relative to the size of each economy; they are not a ranking of how much cash each country collects.
The ranking is historical, based on 2022 data, so it should not be read as a live league table for 2026. Yet Ghana’s subsequent figures suggest the underlying challenge has persisted.
Ghana Statistical Service data puts total revenue and grants at 15.7 per cent of GDP in 2022, 15.3 per cent in 2023, 15.8 per cent in 2024 and 15.7 per cent in 2025. That narrow range points to little sustained increase in the public sector’s share of national output, even as the economy and nominal receipts change.
For a government, the ratio matters because it helps determine how much of the country’s economic activity can be converted into funds for public services, infrastructure and social protection. A low ratio can leave less room to invest while meeting wage and debt obligations.
It does not, by itself, show whether public money is spent well, or identify the right tax rate. But it does highlight the limits of a fiscal model that expects the state to deliver more without steadily widening its dependable sources of revenue.
IFS says Ghana’s 2022 collections of revenue and grants amounted to GH¢96.65 billion. Had the country matched the sample’s 20.1 per cent average, the institute estimates the figure would have been GH¢123.48 billion.
Its broader point is that the current revenue base falls short of what Ghana might raise. As IFS Executive Director Dr Said Boakye put it, the government is collecting revenue “far below its potential”.
The comparison becomes especially striking when IFS applies the same regional-average benchmark to 2025. The institute estimates that Ghana collected GH¢224.88 billion in revenue and grants that year; at 20.1 per cent of GDP, the figure would have been GH¢288.26 billion a difference of GH¢63.38 billion.
IFS cautions that this is an illustration of the scale of the gap, not a sum that Ghana has automatically lost or could immediately recover. The comparison assumes Ghana could match the average without accounting for differences in economies, tax systems, sector composition and administrative capacity.
That caveat matters. A benchmark can sharpen the debate, but treating the estimated difference as an available pot of money risks turning a diagnostic into a budget promise. The policy question is how to raise more predictable revenue while keeping the system fair, encouraging productive investment and improving compliance.
Simply increasing tax rates may bring in some additional money, but it does not resolve leakages, uneven enforcement or exemptions that narrow the base.
IFS identifies three areas for attention: weak public revenue from extractive activity, revenue leakages and tax exemptions. Each calls for a different response. Improving the state’s take from natural resources involves questions of contracts, royalties, ownership and oversight.
Closing leakages requires stronger administration and enforcement. Reviewing exemptions means weighing their fiscal cost against the investment or public benefit they are meant to secure.
The distinction between total revenue and tax revenue is also important. Ghana’s revenue-to-GDP figure includes grants as well as public receipts; it is not a tax-to-GDP measure. The two ratios answer related but different questions.
A debate focused only on tax rates risks missing non-tax revenues, resource-sector returns and administrative weaknesses. The Ghana Statistical Service’s breakdown shows tax revenue at 12.3 per cent of GDP in 2022, rising to 12.8 per cent in 2024 and remaining there in 2025, while grants represented only a small share.
The revenue gap has consequences for spending choices. Where receipts remain constrained, governments have less room to fund capital projects, maintain infrastructure and protect priority services without borrowing or reallocating existing budgets.
That can leave development spending vulnerable when wages, interest costs or sector-specific pressures rise. The challenge is not merely to collect more, but to build a revenue system that gives the state room to plan beyond the next budget cycle.
For that reason, the ranking should prompt a debate about the quality of revenue mobilisation as much as its quantity. Are exemptions regularly assessed against measurable outcomes? Are obligations enforced consistently across sectors and taxpayers?
Do resource agreements deliver a public return commensurate with the value extracted? Can customs and tax agencies use better data and coordination to reduce evasion while making compliance easier for legitimate businesses?
The answers will influence whether future growth translates into stronger public finances. If the economy expands but revenue remains broadly flat as a share of GDP, the state may continue to face pressure to choose between investment, services and debt management.
If mobilisation improves through a broader base, better enforcement and stronger public returns from natural resources, more growth could support public priorities without relying as heavily on new levies.
The 18th-place ranking is therefore less a verdict on Ghana’s performance today than a warning about a long-running constraint. Its 2022 comparison is old, but the country’s 2025 ratio remains close to that level.
The real test is whether policy can turn the gap identified by IFS into a practical programme for sustained revenue growth and whether that growth will produce visible gains in the services and infrastructure citizens are being asked to finance.
