Public debt
82.2% / 82.5%
Tunisia calendar year / Egypt FY25
Comparison 03Evidence cut-off: 29 July 2026Risk comparator
Tunisia × Egypt
Similar debt.
Different crisis mechanics.
Egypt is the useful warning for Tunisia’s fiscal–monetary relationship: a large state footprint, expensive debt, foreign-exchange shortages and delayed adjustment can turn financing pressure into devaluation and inflation. The nearly identical headline debt ratios conceal very different scale, currency regimes and external support.
Growth
2.5% / 4.4%
2025 / Egypt FY2024/25
Inflation reference
5.7% / 13.4%
Tunisia 2025 average / Egypt Feb. 2026
Participation
45.9% / 46.7%
Latest labor-force references
Comparative evidence
A debt ratio does not reveal the cost of carrying the debt.
Egypt’s central-government interest payments reached 10.6% of GDP in FY25, even after debt declined. Tunisia’s central concern is different but related: domestic sovereign financing and weak bank asset quality can crowd out productive credit before a visible currency crisis occurs.
Do not misread the unemployment chart: Egypt’s lower measured unemployment coexists with labor-force participation of only 46.7%, substantial informality and lower female participation. A low unemployment rate is not equivalent to broad access to productive work.
How Egypt’s pressure became inflation
The transmission chain matters more than the final number.
Foreign-currency shortage
Import restrictions and parallel-market pressure interrupted production and weakened confidence.
Large devaluation
Exchange-rate correction restored access to foreign currency but raised local prices and external debt costs.
Inflation shock
Food, fuel and imported-input prices compressed household purchasing power.
High interest rates
Monetary tightening stabilized expectations but made government and private financing more expensive.
Fiscal compression
Interest absorbed 10.6% of GDP, limiting room for services, maintenance and social investment.
The comparison verdict
Egypt is not Tunisia’s closest peer. It is Tunisia’s clearest warning about delaying fiscal, state-enterprise and foreign-exchange correction.
Tunisia still has lower inflation, a less disrupted currency market and closer integration with European production. That advantage should be used before financing constraints force a harsher adjustment.
Egypt’s unique advantages
A market above 110 million people, the Suez Canal, large remittance and tourism flows, Gulf investment, energy assets and a major IMF program.
Egypt’s unique risks
Large foreign-currency needs, extensive state and military business activity, very high interest costs and the distributional damage of repeated devaluation.
Lessons for Tunisia
Act before adjustment becomes compulsory.
FX policy
Prevent a hidden shortage
Publish import backlogs and settlement delays, preserve orderly flexibility and prioritize export capacity rather than defending an unsustainable level.
State footprint
Expose every liability
Publish consolidated SOE debt, guarantees, arrears and bank exposure before divestment, recapitalization or guarantee decisions.
Debt
Manage cost, not only ratio
Track interest-to-revenue, refinancing peaks, currency composition and bank concentration alongside debt-to-GDP.
Projects
Reject unfunded scale
Require transparent demand, financing, maintenance and foreign-exchange tests before major projects receive land, debt or guarantees.
A safer Tunisian sequence
- 1. Rebuild transparencyCash, debt, guarantees, SOEs, FX queues and bank sovereign exposure.
- 2. Secure gradual financingLonger maturities, climate and infrastructure finance, credible fiscal milestones.
- 3. Protect supply and householdsTransfers, competition, energy efficiency and productive imports before broad price reform.
Sources and limits
A risk comparison, not a prediction of devaluation.
World Bank — Tunisia economy↗
World Bank — Egypt economy↗
IMF — Egypt fifth and sixth reviews↗
Download comparison definitions↓
Egypt reports on a July–June fiscal year while Tunisia generally reports calendar-year macro data. Inflation observations also use different periods. The comparison isolates mechanisms and orders of magnitude; it does not claim identical timing or statistical coverage.