Ghana Risks Missing IMF Debt Targets Under Current Fiscal Path

The warning came from opposition, not from the Fund itself. That matters more than the headline suggests.

When Ghana's New Patriotic Party raised concerns this week that the country risks missing its IMF debt sustainability targets under the current fiscal trajectory, the immediate read was political noise. Opposition parties criticize sitting governments, that is what they do. But strip away the partisan framing and the underlying claim is worth attention, not because of who said it, but because of what it reveals about the mechanics of IMF program compliance in a high-debt emerging market trying to exit a restructuring.

Ghana is eighteen months into a $3 billion Extended Credit Facility arrangement with the IMF, agreed in May 2023 after the country defaulted on most of its external debt in December 2022. The program came with strict fiscal consolidation targets: primary surplus requirements, debt-to-GDP ceilings, and revenue mobilization benchmarks designed to restore debt sustainability over the medium term. The political opposition is now arguing that revenue underperformance and expenditure overruns are putting those targets out of reach, even as the government insists it remains on track for the next review.

This is not a story about Ghana alone. It is a story about the gap between IMF program design and fiscal reality in countries where revenue is volatile, expenditure is politically rigid, and the external environment has shifted since the program was negotiated. That gap shows up everywhere, including Nigeria, where similar dynamics are playing out under different institutional labels.

A shorter version of this commentary appears on LinkedIn: [LINKEDIN_POST_URL].

The Mechanics of Missing a Target You Agreed To

IMF programs are built on quantitative performance criteria. These are not aspirational goals or directional guidance, they are hard numeric thresholds that determine whether a country passes its program review and receives the next tranche of financing. For Ghana, the key targets include a primary fiscal surplus (revenue minus non-interest expenditure) rising gradually to around 0.5% of GDP by 2025, and a debt-to-GDP ratio that stabilizes and then declines over the program period.

The problem is that these targets were negotiated under assumptions about revenue growth, commodity prices, exchange rate stability, and expenditure control that have not held. Ghana's revenue-to-GDP ratio has historically hovered around 13 to 15%, one of the lowest in sub-Saharan Africa. The IMF program assumed this would rise through a combination of tax policy reforms, improved compliance, and the rollout of new digital revenue systems. Eighteen months in, the revenue gains have been modest. Tax compliance improved slightly, but not enough to offset the drag from lower-than-expected cocoa export earnings and slower nominal GDP growth in cedi terms as inflation came down faster than the exchange rate adjusted.

On the expenditure side, the government committed to cutting the wage bill as a share of revenue and reducing subsidies. Both are politically difficult. Public sector wages are sticky, and any attempt to freeze hiring or cut nominal pay triggers immediate union resistance. Subsidies, particularly on fuel and electricity, were supposed to be phased out, but global oil prices stayed elevated longer than expected, and the political cost of removing subsidies in an election cycle proved too high. The result is that non-interest expenditure has not declined as much as the program assumed, even as revenue disappointed.

The arithmetic is unforgiving. If revenue comes in 1% of GDP below target and expenditure runs 0.5% above, the primary balance misses by 1.5 percentage points. That might sound small, but in a program where the target surplus is only 0.5% of GDP, it is the difference between compliance and breach.

What Happens When You Miss

Missing a quantitative performance criterion does not automatically terminate an IMF program, but it does trigger a renegotiation. The Fund can grant a waiver if the deviation is small and the authorities can demonstrate corrective measures. If the miss is larger or persistent, the program goes off-track, the next disbursement is delayed, and the country loses the seal of approval that keeps other creditors engaged.

For Ghana, the stakes are particularly high because the IMF program is the anchor for the entire debt restructuring process. The country is still negotiating with external commercial creditors under a framework that assumes IMF financing continues and that debt sustainability is restored by the end of the program. If the program goes off-track, the restructuring loses its anchor, creditors lose confidence that the fiscal adjustment will actually happen, and the whole process risks unraveling.

This is the dynamic the opposition is pointing to. They are not arguing that the government has formally breached a target yet, they are arguing that the current fiscal path makes a future breach likely, and that the government is not taking the corrective action needed to avoid it. Whether that claim is accurate depends on data that is not yet fully public, the next IMF review will clarify it. But the fact that the concern is being raised at all, and that it is framed in terms of specific program targets rather than vague fiscal criticism, suggests that the underlying fiscal pressures are real.

The Nigerian Parallel

Nigeria is not in an IMF program, but it is running a version of the same experiment. The federal government has committed to fiscal consolidation through subsidy removal, revenue reforms, and expenditure discipline, all without the formal structure of a Fund arrangement. The logic is identical: reduce the deficit, stabilize debt, restore investor confidence. The difference is that without IMF conditionality, there is no external enforcement mechanism and no predefined path for what happens if the targets are missed.

Nigeria's 2024 budget assumed oil production of 1.78 million barrels per day and an exchange rate of ₦750 to the dollar. Both assumptions were optimistic when the budget was passed, and both have been tested by reality. Oil production has been closer to 1.5 million barrels per day for much of the year, and the naira has traded well above ₦800 for extended periods. On the revenue side, that means lower oil receipts in dollar terms and higher debt service costs in naira terms as external obligations are revalued. On the expenditure side, it means that any item priced in dollars, from fuel imports to capital projects with foreign components, costs more than budgeted.

The result is the same fiscal squeeze Ghana is experiencing: revenue underperforms, expenditure overruns, and the primary balance deteriorates. The difference is that Nigeria does not have a formal program review to force the issue into the open. The fiscal slippage happens quietly, absorbed into supplementary budgets and off-balance-sheet financing arrangements, until it shows up in the debt stock or in a sudden loss of market access.

Why Revenue Is the Binding Constraint

Both countries share a structural problem: revenue is too low and too volatile to support the level of public expenditure that is politically necessary. Ghana's revenue-to-GDP ratio of 13% is low even by regional standards. Nigeria's is worse, closer to 10% when you exclude oil, which makes it one of the lowest tax takes in the world for a country of its size and income level.

The IMF's prescription is always the same: broaden the tax base, improve compliance, digitize revenue collection, reduce exemptions. All of this is correct in principle, but it takes years to implement and delivers results slowly. In the meantime, the government still has to pay salaries, service debt, and fund basic services. The gap between what revenue can sustainably finance and what expenditure is politically required is the space where fiscal programs break down.

Ghana tried to close that gap quickly through aggressive tax policy changes, including new levies on electronic transactions and higher VAT rates. The measures raised some revenue, but they also triggered public backlash and dampened economic activity, which partially offset the revenue gains. Nigeria is attempting a different path, relying more on subsidy removal than on new taxes, but the political cost has been similar. Inflation surged after the subsidy was removed, real incomes fell, and the government faced pressure to increase spending on palliatives and wage adjustments, which ate into the fiscal savings the reform was supposed to deliver.

This is the bind: the reforms that are supposed to create fiscal space in the medium term often reduce it in the short term, because they are politically costly and economically disruptive. If the government does not have the credibility or the political capital to hold the line through the adjustment period, the reform unravels, and the fiscal position ends up worse than before.

Debt Dynamics Under Stress

The other piece of the puzzle is debt service. Both Ghana and Nigeria are spending a large and rising share of revenue on interest payments. For Ghana, debt service absorbed over 70% of revenue in 2022 before the restructuring, which is why the default happened. The restructuring has provided temporary relief by extending maturities and reducing coupon rates, but it has not eliminated the debt, it has just pushed the repayment further out. If the fiscal consolidation does not happen, the debt ratio will start rising again, and the country will be back in the same position in a few years.

Nigeria's debt service ratio is lower in headline terms, but it is rising quickly. Domestic debt service alone took nearly 50% of federal retained revenue in 2023, and that is before accounting for the full cost of ways and means advances that have been securitized into bonds. External debt service is manageable in dollar terms, but expensive in naira terms because of the exchange rate. The total debt service burden is not yet unsustainable, but it is on a path to become so if revenue does not grow and if the primary deficit is not closed.

The relationship between debt and growth is nonlinear. Up to a point, debt is manageable as long as growth is strong and revenue is rising. Beyond that point, debt service starts to crowd out productive spending, growth slows, revenue disappoints, and the debt ratio accelerates. Ghana crossed that threshold in 2022. Nigeria has not crossed it yet, but the margin is narrower than the official debt-to-GDP ratio suggests, because the ratio does not capture contingent liabilities, off-balance-sheet obligations, or the fiscal cost of state-owned enterprise losses that eventually flow back to the budget.

What Compliance Actually Requires

Meeting an IMF fiscal target in a high-debt, low-revenue environment requires more than good intentions. It requires a level of expenditure control and revenue execution that most governments, even well-intentioned ones, struggle to deliver. Every line ministry wants more budget, every political constituency expects services, and every external shock, whether it is a commodity price swing or a security crisis, creates pressure to spend more than planned.

The countries that succeed in IMF programs are usually the ones that either have strong technocratic institutions that can enforce discipline across government, or that face such severe external pressure that there is no alternative to compliance. Ghana had the latter in 2023, the default and the economic crisis left no room for deviation. Eighteen months later, the crisis has eased, growth has resumed, and the political pressure to relax fiscal discipline has returned. That is when programs go off-track, not in the crisis phase when everyone agrees adjustment is necessary, but in the recovery phase when the pain of adjustment starts to outweigh the fear of collapse.

Nigeria does not have the external pressure of an IMF program, which means it also does not have the enforcement mechanism. The fiscal consolidation is voluntary, driven by the government's own commitment and by market pressure. Market pressure is real, borrowing costs are high and access is limited, but it is also slow and indirect. A government can run a wider deficit for longer without an immediate crisis, as long as it can finance the gap domestically or through concessional lending. The risk is that by the time the market forces adjustment, the fiscal position has deteriorated so much that the adjustment required is more painful than it would have been under a disciplined program.

The Political Economy of Adjustment

Fiscal consolidation is a political process as much as an economic one. The opposition in Ghana is not raising concerns about IMF targets because they care about debt sustainability in the abstract, they are raising them because fiscal failure is a political vulnerability for the government. If the program goes off-track, it becomes a campaign issue. If the government is forced into a mid-program correction, it will require unpopular measures, tax increases, spending cuts, subsidy adjustments, all of which the opposition can exploit.

The same dynamic exists in Nigeria, but without the formal program structure, the accountability is less clear. The government can miss its own fiscal targets without triggering a formal review or a public renegotiation. The slippage shows up in the numbers, higher deficits, rising debt, but it does not create a discrete political moment the way an IMF program breach does. That makes it easier for the government to avoid hard choices in the short term, but it also means the fiscal drift can continue longer before it is corrected.

What To Watch

The next IMF review for Ghana is expected in the coming months. The key variables to watch are revenue performance in the second quarter, the primary balance outcome, and whether the government has taken any corrective measures to address the shortfall. If the review is delayed or if it results in a waiver rather than a clean pass, that is a signal that the fiscal path is weaker than the government is publicly acknowledging.

For Nigeria, the indicators are less formal but no less important. Watch the federal government's revenue performance relative to budget, particularly non-oil revenue, which is where the structural improvement is supposed to come from. Watch the primary deficit, not the overall deficit, because that tells you whether the government is living within its means before debt service. And watch the debt service ratio, both in naira terms and as a share of revenue, because that is the binding constraint on fiscal space.

The broader lesson is that fiscal consolidation in a high-debt, low-revenue environment is fragile. It requires sustained political will, strong execution, and a bit of luck with external conditions. When any of those three elements weakens, the program starts to slip, and the gap between target and reality widens. Ghana is showing what that slippage looks like in real time. Nigeria would do well to pay attention, because the same pressures are building here, just without the formal scoreboard that makes them visible.