Building Tax Capacity for Growth and Development: IMF’s 15% Threshold and the Global Fiscal Divide
Click here to hear in youtube: https://youtu.be/k9Uy9aJCu3g
Source: IMF Fiscal Affairs Department – Departmental Paper (2025)
Authors: Katherine Baer, Matthieu Bellon, Matt Davies, Ruud De Mooij, Vitor Gaspar, Andrea Lemgruber, Mario Mansour, Fayçal Sawadogo, Misa Takebe, Charles Vellutini
Executive Summary
The IMF’s recent departmental paper places taxation capacity at the heart of state resilience and sustainable development. Its central message is clear: a tax-to-GDP ratio of at least 15% is the critical threshold for countries to escape the low-growth trap and achieve institutional strengthening.
Currently, 71 developing economies remain below this 15% benchmark, with fragile and resource-dependent states disproportionately represented. The IMF identifies an average “tax gap” of roughly 5% of GDP in low-income countries—revenue that could be mobilized through policy reform, improved administration, and digitalization.
The report highlights not only the quantitative shortfall but also the qualitative dimensions of fiscal systems: broadening tax bases, rationalizing expenditures, modernizing VAT, leveraging property and excise taxes, and ensuring compliance through governance and digital infrastructure. Importantly, the paper integrates this fiscal target with the Seville Commitment (2025), which enshrines the 15% ratio as a global political and developmental benchmark.
Five Laws of Epistemic Integrity
Truthfulness of Information
The report is grounded in IMF longitudinal data (WoRLD database, 1990–2022) and econometric modeling of tax potential. It builds on prior research (Gaspar, Jaramillo, Wingender, Bellon, Warwick) showing the growth “tipping point” in tax-to-GDP ratios. The empirical base is solid. Verdict: High.Source Referencing
References are appropriately cited, with cross-linkage to World Bank data (natural resource rents), UN SDGs, and IMF Fiscal Monitor 2025. The explicit anchoring in the Compromiso de Sevilla adds legitimacy. Verdict: High.Reliability & Accuracy
The use of long-term averages (1995–2022) smooths volatility and provides a robust comparative frame across advanced, emerging, and low-income economies. Sensitivity to institutional capacity and fragile states is acknowledged. Verdict: High.Contextual Judgment
The IMF frames tax capacity not merely as revenue, but as a foundational element of statehood, financial development, and governance legitimacy. The contextual depth—linking taxation to trust, stability, and growth—avoids reductionist interpretations. Verdict: High.Inference Traceability
The inferences from data to policy are transparent: (a) low-income countries can mobilize +5% GDP in taxes; (b) crossing 15% leads to institutional strengthening; (c) reforms must combine design, administration, and governance. Verdict: High.
BBIU Opinion: The IMF’s “15% Rule” as Oversimplification
The IMF’s 2025 departmental paper presents the 15% tax-to-GDP ratio as a universal threshold for economic growth and state legitimacy. While the logic is seductive in its simplicity—higher taxation leads to higher capacity, and therefore higher growth—our structural analysis identifies this as a case of functional oversimplification.
1. Correlation vs. Causation
Countries above 15% tax-to-GDP often display stronger growth, but this does not prove taxation caused the growth. In many cases, growth enabled higher taxation, not the reverse. This inversion is particularly visible in Asia, where industrialization preceded fiscal expansion.
2. The Quality of Spending Matters More Than the Quantity of Taxation
The IMF model assumes additional revenue translates into productive public investment. Yet, Brazil collects more than 30% of GDP in taxes with stagnant growth, while Singapore sustained decades of expansion with a leaner, business-friendly fiscal framework. The composition of spending—education, infrastructure, governance—determines growth, not the absolute level of taxation.
3. Regional Heterogeneity Breaks the Model
Nordics/Europe: The 15% threshold is long surpassed, but the model works because of trust, redistributive spending, and institutional quality.
Latin America: High taxation coexists with low growth due to inefficiency, rent-seeking, and corruption.
Africa: The challenge is not tax rates but enforcement, informality, and dependence on resource rents.
Asia: Divergent paths—Japan and Korea mirror the European redistributive model, while Singapore and China rely on competitiveness and selective taxation.
4. The Political Function of the “15% Rule”
By enshrining a single figure, the IMF and the UN’s Seville Commitment convert a technical correlation into a global standard of legitimacy. States below 15% are automatically categorized as “fragile,” creating a new metric for conditionality in aid, debt negotiations, and multilateral financing. The rule thus operates less as an economic truth and more as a classification instrument of geopolitical governance.
5. Hidden Incentives and Systemic Dynamics
In advanced economies, Personal Income Taxes (PIT) bear the brunt of fiscal pressure, often exceeding 45–55% at the top marginal rates, while Corporate Income Taxes (CIT) remain moderate (20–25%).
Dividend taxation varies widely: Nordic countries impose harsh double layers, while Singapore exempts dividends entirely.
This design implicitly incentivizes entrepreneurship and corporate structuring, since channeling income through firms reduces effective taxation. The IMF paper overlooks this asymmetry, presenting taxation as neutral when in fact it reshapes behavior.
Final Assessment
The IMF’s framework succeeds in highlighting taxation as a cornerstone of state capacity, but it fails as a universal growth model. By compressing complexity into a single number—15%—it risks misleading policymakers and legitimizing external conditionality without addressing structural differences.
BBIU Integrity Warning: The “15% rule” is not a law of economics but a narrative device. For countries under the threshold, the challenge is not simply to raise taxes, but to build institutions, improve spending quality, and design fiscal systems aligned with their productive structure and social contract.
Annex 1 — Equality, Polarization, and the State Beyond the IMF’s 15% Rule
1. What Is the State? Four Structural Pillars
To understand whether a tax-to-GDP ratio of 15% makes a state “strong,” we must first define what a state is. A modern state rests on four functional pillars:
Legitimate Coercion – The monopoly of force: armed forces, police, territorial control. Without this, sovereignty collapses regardless of fiscal capacity.
Rule of Law and Institutions – The system of courts, contracts, and property rights that underpins both taxation and markets.
Fiscal and Administrative Capacity – The ability to extract and allocate resources through taxation, tariffs, and bureaucratic enforcement.
Legitimacy and Social Contract – Acceptance of state authority by citizens, based on perceived fairness and representation.
The IMF framework reduces the strength of the state to a single dimension: pillar three. A state can have a high tax-to-GDP ratio and still be weak if it fails in coercion (e.g., military collapse), in law (corruption of courts), or in legitimacy (mass protests against government).
2. How Much Is Needed to Sustain a State?
The real fiscal threshold depends on what functions the state assumes:
Fragile State (<10% of GDP in taxes): Incapable of sustaining even basic security and justice.
Minimal Functional State (12–20%): Covers defense, justice, essential administration, and core infrastructure. Education and health are mostly private.
Social State (25–35%): Provides universal services such as healthcare, pensions, and education.
Expansive or Politicized State (>35%): Redistributes widely but risks inefficiency and over-politicization.
Thus, the IMF’s 15% figure can be read as a floor for minimal state viability — not as a guarantee of strength or growth.
3. Minimalist State Design: Cutting Back to the Core
If ministries are reduced to the essentials (Defense, Justice, Finance, Foreign Affairs, Infrastructure), and legislators operate ad honorem as they did historically, the cost of the political class drops. However, this symbolic saving rarely exceeds 1–2% of GDP.
The true fiscal reduction comes from outsourcing or privatizing social functions. A minimalist state can function with 8–12% of GDP, but only if health, education, and pensions are left to private or community provision.
4. Which Taxes Could Sustain a Minimalist State?
A minimalist tax regime must be simple, broad-based, and low in administrative cost:
Value-Added Tax (VAT): Central pillar, 12–15% rate can generate steady revenue.
Tariffs: A traditional and effective revenue stream for small, open economies.
Selective Taxes: On fuel, alcohol, tobacco, gambling — politically acceptable and stable.
Administrative Fees: Passports, licenses, property registries.
What is minimized or avoided:
Complex Personal Income Taxes (PIT) with high administrative cost.
Aggressive Corporate Income Taxes (CIT) that encourage avoidance.
Universal state-funded welfare systems.
Estimated result: 10–15% of GDP revenue is sufficient for a minimalist state.
5. Effects on a Growing Economy
Short Term (0–2 years): Simplification produces immediate confidence. Investors respond positively; fiscal revenues stabilize through VAT. However, low-income households feel the regressive weight of consumption taxes.
Medium Term (3–7 years): Investment and growth accelerate. Formalization expands; macroeconomic stability improves. Yet inequality widens as health and education are privately financed.
Long Term (8–15 years): Two paths diverge:
Convergence (like Singapore): Growth creates enough wealth to reintroduce selective social spending (scholarships, basic clinics).
Stagnation (like parts of Latin America): Inequality persists, productivity lags, and political populism emerges to expand the state unsustainably.
6. Equality: Myth and Reality
Absolute equality does not exist. Even in communist systems, party elites and informal hierarchies emerged. What is possible is relative equality of opportunity, not absolute material sameness.
In minimalist states: Needs are met at subsistence level, but mobility is restricted.
In high-tax states: Inequality narrows, but hierarchies remain (wealth accumulation, networks of power).
Thus, raising taxes above 15% reduces inequality but never eliminates it.
7. Polarization: An Inescapable Constant
Polarization persists under all fiscal models:
Low-tax states (<15%): Polarization is material — between those with access to survival and those without.
High-tax states (>15%): Polarization becomes ideological — contributors vs beneficiaries, natives vs immigrants, advocates of state vs advocates of market.
The IMF ignores this structural fact: polarization never disappears; it only mutates in form.
8. The Risk of Over-Engineering Equality
When redistribution is pushed too far, societies create state-dependent individuals. These citizens become politically vulnerable: their survival depends on subsidies and transfers, which can be weaponized by governments for electoral loyalty. Redistribution then shifts from being a tool of fairness to a mechanism of political control.
9. BBIU Integrity Verdict
The IMF is partially correct: below ~15% of GDP in taxes, a modern state cannot survive.
But the IMF is fundamentally incomplete: crossing 15% does not create equality, strength, or growth automatically.
The facts:
Absolute equality is impossible.
Polarization always exists.
Excessive control of equality breeds dependence and political capture.
In short: tax thresholds define fiscal capacity, but the strength of a state depends on legitimacy, law, coercion, and social contract — not merely on revenue ratios.
Annex 2 — The Pattern of Rulers: When 15% Is Not Enough
1. The Fiscal Shortfall Problem
When governments cannot sustain themselves with taxes alone, they seek alternatives. The IMF frames 15% of GDP in taxes as the threshold for a “strong state.” But history shows that when rulers face the political impossibility of raising taxes, they do not accept weakness. Instead, they turn to extraordinary mechanisms — debt, monetary expansion, or rewriting the monetary order itself.
2. The Nixon Shock: Rewriting the Monetary Rules
In August 1971, President Richard Nixon suspended the convertibility of the U.S. dollar into gold, breaking the Bretton Woods system. The U.S. was under immense fiscal pressure:
War costs from Vietnam and expanded domestic programs.
Balance of payments crisis, as foreign governments converted dollars to gold.
Political dilemma: raising taxes or cutting spending before an election was unthinkable.
Nixon chose the easier path: decouple the dollar from gold, print more paper, and impose temporary controls. This decision preserved short-term stability but marked the birth of a new era of fiat money — where trust, not gold, backed the system.
3. Printing Money: The Classic Escape Valve
When tax revenues fail, rulers reach for the printing press:
Short-term relief: Salaries, subsidies, and debts are paid without raising unpopular taxes.
Hidden mechanism: Inflation acts as an invisible tax, transferring resources from citizens to the state.
Winners and losers:
Losers: salaried workers and savers in domestic currency.
Winners: debtors (including governments) and asset-holders (land, foreign currency, commodities).
Inflation is thus regressive: it does not reduce inequality but amplifies it, as the poor carry the heaviest burden.
4. The Hidden Tax of Inflation
Destruction of savings: Citizens lose the ability to accumulate wealth in local currency.
Acceleration of money velocity: People spend quickly, knowing tomorrow’s money will be worth less.
Pressure on inflation: Faster rotation of money feeds further price increases.
Collapse of trust: Money ceases to function as a store of value, undermining the entire social contract.
5. Today’s Morphine, Tomorrow’s Addiction
Monetary expansion is political morphine:
Immediate relief: It numbs the fiscal pain, allowing rulers to postpone hard decisions.
Addiction: Once used, expectations grow. Each injection requires a larger dose.
Tolerance: Inflation spirals, and rulers become trapped — without new injections collapse is immediate; with them, collapse is postponed but worse.
Social decay: Savings vanish, long-term planning dies, and citizens flee into dollars, barter, or crypto.
The state appears stronger today but becomes structurally weaker tomorrow.
6. The Ruler’s Dilemma
Faced with insufficient taxation, rulers always confront the same paradox:
Raise taxes and risk revolt.
Borrow or print and risk inflationary collapse.
Depend on resources or foreign patrons and risk sovereignty.
Nixon’s choice shows that even the most powerful state will rewrite the monetary system itself to avoid facing the political cost of taxation.
7. BBIU Integrity Verdict
The IMF’s 15% tax threshold is not a measure of state strength but a narrow fiscal lens.
When 15% is not enough, rulers reach for faster, riskier tools: debt, inflation, monetary redesign.
These tools transfer the cost to society: eroding savings, fueling inequality, and weakening trust.
Inflationary finance is morphine today, addiction tomorrow — it buys time for rulers but ensures deeper social suffering later.
Conclusion: A state is not made strong by surpassing 15% in taxes, nor by printing money when taxes fall short. True strength lies in legitimacy, efficiency, and restraint — not in paper promises.
Conclusion — Beyond Numbers, the Human Cost of Fiscal Evasion
The IMF tells us that once a country reaches 15% of GDP in taxes, the state becomes strong. History shows otherwise. Nixon’s 1971 decision to abandon the gold standard was not a sign of strength, but of political avoidance — a refusal to raise taxes or cut spending in the face of war and domestic pressure. It worked for a season, but the cost was transferred to the entire world: an age of fiat money, inflation, and fragile trust in currencies.
This is the essence of what happens when rulers cannot or will not tax enough. They choose the quick remedy — debt, printing, or resource rents — a political morphine that numbs today’s pain while seeding tomorrow’s addiction. Citizens pay the price: savings evaporate, the velocity of money accelerates, and inflation erodes both purchasing power and trust. Inequality widens, not narrows. States appear powerful in the moment, but beneath the surface they grow weaker, dependent on repeated doses of monetary anesthesia.
A strong state is not built by passing a fiscal threshold or by rewriting monetary rules when that threshold fails. It is built by legitimacy, efficiency, and the discipline to face short-term pain rather than masking it. The lesson of Nixon — and of every ruler who reached for the printing press — is that what looks like strength today often reveals itself as fragility tomorrow.
