FELIX OLADEJI contends that while reducing borrowing may contribute to fiscal discipline, sustainable prosperity depends equally upon strengthening government’s capacity to generate stable revenue
The recent assertion by a senior World Bank official that Nigeria’s principal fiscal challenge is low government revenue rather than excessive public debt has once again brought the country’s public finance debate to the forefront of national discourse. The statement challenges one of the most persistent assumptions within Nigeria’s economic conversation—that borrowing itself constitutes the country’s greatest fiscal vulnerability. Instead, the World Bank argues that while Nigeria’s debt remains relatively moderate by international standards, the government’s capacity to generate sufficient revenue remains critically weak. Supporters of this assessment contend that strengthening domestic revenue mobilisation offers a more sustainable path toward fiscal stability than focusing exclusively on reducing public borrowing. Yet beyond the immediate debate lies a broader policy question: is Nigeria’s economic future constrained primarily by how much it borrows, or by how little revenue it generates to finance national development?
The argument in favour of prioritising revenue reform is rooted largely in the fundamental role that public revenue plays within modern economies. Governments require stable and predictable revenue to finance essential public services, invest in infrastructure, maintain national security, strengthen healthcare systems, improve education, and support long-term economic development. While borrowing can supplement public finance, sustainable development ultimately depends upon a government’s ability to generate sufficient domestic income to meet its obligations without excessive dependence on external financing.
Supporters therefore argue that Nigeria’s fiscal challenge should be understood primarily as a revenue problem rather than a debt problem. Compared with many emerging and advanced economies, Nigeria’s public debt-to-GDP ratio remains relatively modest. The more pressing concern is that government revenue, particularly tax revenue, remains among the lowest globally relative to the size of the economy. Consequently, even moderate levels of debt create significant fiscal pressure because a substantial proportion of government income is devoted to debt servicing. This reality limits fiscal space for development expenditure while reducing the government’s capacity to respond effectively to economic shocks.
Recent developments within the global economy reinforce these arguments. Governments around the world continue to face mounting expenditure demands arising from inflationary pressures, climate adaptation, infrastructure investment, demographic changes, healthcare expansion, and technological transformation. In this increasingly complex environment, countries possessing stronger domestic revenue systems are generally better positioned to finance development priorities while maintaining fiscal stability. Revenue generation has therefore become not merely a financial necessity but a strategic pillar of national resilience.
Furthermore, stronger public revenue creates opportunities that extend far beyond balancing government budgets. Stable fiscal resources enable governments to invest consistently in roads, electricity, ports, digital infrastructure, scientific research, education, healthcare, and agricultural productivity. These investments strengthen private sector confidence, improve productivity, stimulate employment, and enhance long-term economic competitiveness. In this sense, revenue mobilisation should be viewed not simply as an accounting exercise but as an essential instrument of national development.
Yet the case for caution remains equally compelling. Revenue mobilisation should not be equated with increasing tax burdens indiscriminately. One of the greatest misconceptions surrounding fiscal reform is the assumption that higher government revenue necessarily requires imposing more taxes on already struggling citizens and businesses. While taxation remains an important component of public finance, sustainable revenue generation depends equally upon expanding the productive economy, improving tax administration, broadening the tax base, reducing informality, strengthening compliance, and encouraging economic growth.
This concern is particularly relevant within Nigeria’s current economic context. Many households continue to experience inflationary pressures, declining purchasing power, and rising living costs. Businesses similarly face high operating expenses arising from unreliable electricity, exchange-rate volatility, infrastructure deficits, and security challenges. Under these conditions, aggressive increases in tax rates could potentially discourage investment, reduce business competitiveness, and further constrain economic activity. Revenue reform must therefore balance fiscal necessity with economic sustainability.
Another important challenge concerns the composition of government revenue itself. Nigeria has historically depended heavily on hydrocarbon earnings to finance public expenditure. Although recent reforms have sought to diversify revenue sources, fluctuations in global oil prices continue to expose the country’s public finances to significant external risks. Sustainable fiscal stability therefore requires strengthening non-oil revenues through manufacturing, agriculture, digital services, mining, tourism, creative industries, and expanded formal-sector economic activity. Diversification remains central to building a more resilient fiscal system.
Questions of institutional capacity also deserve careful attention. Effective revenue mobilisation depends not only upon economic performance but also upon the quality of public institutions responsible for tax administration, customs operations, financial accountability, and public expenditure management. Citizens are generally more willing to comply with tax obligations when government institutions operate transparently, public resources are managed responsibly, and taxpayers observe tangible improvements in public services. Fiscal legitimacy therefore depends upon trust as much as taxation.
The discussion also reflects broader questions about Nigeria’s long-term development strategy. Policymakers increasingly recognise that sustainable economic growth requires stronger institutions capable of mobilising domestic resources while encouraging entrepreneurship and investment. Revenue reform cannot succeed in isolation. It must be accompanied by regulatory certainty, infrastructure development, digitalisation of tax administration, anti-corruption measures, financial inclusion, and policies that encourage business formalisation. Strong revenue systems emerge where economic opportunity expands alongside institutional effectiveness.
International experience offers valuable lessons. Several emerging economies have successfully strengthened their fiscal positions not primarily by eliminating borrowing but by expanding domestic revenue through institutional reform, economic diversification, and improved tax administration. Countries across Asia and Latin America invested heavily in administrative efficiency, digital revenue collection, industrial expansion, and formalisation of economic activity. Their experiences demonstrate that borrowing becomes more sustainable when governments possess reliable revenue streams capable of supporting long-term repayment without undermining development expenditure.
Equally important is recognising that public debt itself is not inherently detrimental. Governments across the world borrow to finance infrastructure, education, healthcare, transportation, energy projects, and technological development. The more important consideration is whether borrowed resources finance productive investments capable of generating future economic returns. Borrowing for consumption without corresponding growth may create fiscal vulnerabilities, whereas borrowing to expand productive capacity can strengthen long-term development when managed responsibly.
Ultimately, the World Bank’s observation should not be viewed simply as a technical assessment of Nigeria’s fiscal position. The more important question is whether it encourages a broader reconsideration of how public finance supports national development. Reducing borrowing may contribute to fiscal discipline, but sustainable prosperity depends equally upon strengthening the government’s capacity to generate stable, diversified, and predictable revenue capable of financing long-term national priorities.
The World Bank’s assessment therefore provides an important opportunity to reframe Nigeria’s fiscal conversation. Rather than focusing exclusively on how much government borrows, policymakers should devote equal attention to how effectively public institutions mobilise revenue, expand the productive economy, and encourage sustainable private-sector growth. Revenue should be understood not merely as a source of government income but as the financial foundation upon which national development ultimately depends.
If Nigeria is to achieve lasting fiscal sustainability, the objective should not simply be to borrow less but to build an economy capable of generating sufficient domestic resources to finance inclusive growth, strengthen public institutions, and improve the welfare of its citizens. The real challenge is not whether the country can reduce its debt burden, but whether it can develop the productive capacity, institutional efficiency, and economic resilience necessary to generate the revenue that sustainable development demands.
Oladeji writes from Lagos
