Why Vision 2050 may well be a mathematical illusion

By Festo Mulinda

Last year, I happened to overhear a conversation between two foreign colleagues. One asked the other, “Is Tanzania safe?” The response, delivered half-jokingly, was, “It is safe, until it isn’t.” Soon afterwards, political tensions surrounding October 29 election unrest reinforced that point. Investors, unlike citizens, do not wait for uncertainty to pass; they price it into their decisions immediately. That conversation returned to mind as Tanzania launched Vision 2050, an ambitious strategy to transform the country into a $1 trillion economy by mid-century.

National visions are designed to inspire citizens and reassure investors that a country’s future is worth backing. Vision 2050 succeeds in projecting ambition. But ambition alone cannot overcome arithmetic.

Tanzania’s economy is currently worth about $90 billion. Reaching $1 trillion by 2050 means expanding it more than eleven-fold in twenty-five years. That would require sustaining close to 10 percent annual growth, while avoiding prolonged currency depreciation, political instability and major global shocks. History suggests such outcomes rarely occur without profound structural change.

Vision 2025 offers an important lesson. Around 2000, Tanzania’s GDP stood at roughly $12 billion according to World Bank data. Twenty-five years later, it has grown to about $90 billion, an impressive achievement. Growth averaged around six percent for much of the period, infrastructure improved significantly and Tanzania attained lower-middle-income status.

Yet many of Vision 2025’s ambitions remain unfinished. The economy is still heavily dependent on agriculture and raw commodity exports, manufacturing has underperformed, productivity remains low and job creation has struggled to keep pace with a rapidly growing young population.

Every time I think about Tanzania’s development trajectory, I find myself asking the same question: what exactly is our plan? Where are we concentrating our energy? What is the one clear path that any Tanzanian, investor or outsider can point to and say, “That is where the country is headed”? Increasingly, it feels as though we are everywhere and nowhere at the same time. From “Kilimo Kwanza” to “Tanzania ya Viwanda”, we have seen it all: announce, boast, go to sleep then repeat the drill.

That uncertainty extends beyond economics. Stability, once one of Tanzania’s greatest competitive advantages, is gradually becoming less certain. Politically, the country is becoming more fragmented, with growing factions disagreeing on almost everything and showing little willingness to compromise. Whether these divisions are temporary or structural is almost beside the point. What matters is how they are perceived. Development does not thrive on uncertainty.

That is why, when we talk about ambitious economic targets, we cannot pretend politics and governance are separate conversations. They are part of the same equation.

If twenty-five years of relatively stable macroeconomic management produced a $90 billion economy, what will fundamentally change over the next twenty-five years to deliver a $1 trillion economy? That is the central question Vision 2050 must answer. Economic transformations occur when countries fundamentally change how they produce, educate, trade and govern.

China illustrates the power of policy continuity. Since Deng Xiaoping’s 1978 reforms, successive governments have maintained a long-term focus on manufacturing, exports, infrastructure and investment, helping transform the country into the world’s second-largest economy. Singapore similarly refined rather than abandoned its development strategy, building investor confidence through stable institutions and predictable policies. Indonesia and Malaysia sustained broad commitments to macroeconomic stability, infrastructure and industrialisation. South Korea, Vietnam and Rwanda offer similar lessons: enduring economic success depends more on consistent institutions, stable policies and a clear national development direction.

These examples highlight a lesson Tanzania cannot ignore: sustained development depends on policy consistency, including predictable foreign policy. Foreign policy is not merely diplomacy; it is an economic instrument that shapes investor confidence, market access and international partnerships. These fundamentals should not fluctuate dramatically with changes in political leadership.

President Jakaya Kikwete emphasised regional diplomacy and multilateral engagement. President John Magufuli adopted a more nationalist and inward-looking approach. President Samia Suluhu Hassan has largely tried to restore the Kikwete handbook. While each responded to different circumstances, foreign policy should never be individualised. Policy shifts create uncertainty for investors planning projects spanning decades. Capital values predictability even more than favourable policies.

Tanzania possesses many of the ingredients needed for sustained prosperity: strategic geography, abundant natural resources, and one of Africa’s youngest populations. The real question is whether its institutions are strong enough to convert these advantages into sustained double-digit productivity growth.

Vision 2050 should therefore be welcomed – not as a guarantee, but as a challenge. If Tanzania continues growing broadly as it has over the past quarter century, then reaching a $1 trillion economy by 2050 is unrealistic. Achieving that goal will require a productivity revolution, export-led industrialisation, deeper integration into global value chains, world-class human capital, technological innovation and, stable, consistent and transparent institutions capable of maintaining consistent policies across political transitions.

Otherwise, Vision 2050 risks joining the long list of national development plans remembered more for their aspirations than their achievements. A vision should stretch our imagination. But it should never ask us to suspend arithmetic.

Festo Mulinda is a political analyst and freelance columnist focusing on geopolitics and international relations. [email protected]