Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Richard M. Salsman
Assistant Professor, Program in Philosophy, Politics &
Economics, Department of Political Science, Duke University,
USA
Published by
Edward Elgar Publishing Limited
The Lypiatts
15 Lansdown Road
Cheltenham
Glos GL50 2JA
UK
Introduction1
1 A brief history of public debt 12
2 Classical theories of public debt 30
3 Keynesian theories of public debt 94
4 Public choice and public debt 153
5 The limits of public debt 217
Conclusion258
Appendix263
References264
Index303
v
Figures
1.1 Public debt of the United Kingdom as a percentage of GDP,
1700–201518
1.2 Public interest expense of the United Kingdom as a percentage
of GDP, 1700–2015 18
1.3 Public spending of the United Kingdom as a percentage of
GDP, 1700–2015 19
1.4 Public debt of the United States as a percentage of GDP,
1800–201520
1.5 Public interest expense of the United States as a percentage of
GDP, 1800–2015 21
1.6 Public spending of the United States as a percentage of GDP,
1800–201522
1.7 Public debt of 22 OECD nations as a percentage of GDP,
1900–201122
1.8 Three projections of the US debt/GDP ratio (leverage),
2010–4028
vi
Tables
1.1 Gross public debt as a percentage of GDP, 15 OECD nations,
1910–201023
1.2 Public spending as a percentage of GDP, 15 OECD nations,
1910–201024
1.3 The paradox of profligacy: higher public debt leverage, yet
lower borrowing rates, G-7 nations, 1980–2015 25
A.1 Public debt theorists classified as realists, pessimists, and
optimists263
vii
Acknowledgments
The author acknowledges Michael Munger for being an invaluable mentor
and the model of a collegial, productive scholar, the late John David Lewis
for blazing a path I’ve since happily traversed, and Lisa Lynn Principe for
her loving and loyal support. My sincerest appreciation extends also to
John Allison, Carl Barney, and Yaron Brook for their invaluable support
of me professionally. Additionally, I am very grateful to Geoffrey Brennan,
William Keech, John Aldrich, Thomas Spragens, Richard Wagner, Peter
Boettke, and Richard Sylla for their valuable input and counsel on this
project. Finally, I thank Alan Sturmer, Karissa Venne, and Sarah Brown at
Edward Elgar Publishing for their terrific skill and utmost professionalism.
I’m proud of what I’ve accomplished here, yet I’m also solely responsible
for any errors or oddities that might still remain.
viii
Introduction
This work examines three centuries of the most prominent political-
economic theories of public debt, to help illuminate various causes and
consequences of the unprecedented expansion of such debt over the
past decade and – as is probable – for decades to come. I consult and
interrogate not only specialists in public debt but also the most influential
minds of political economy in modern history, from Hume and Smith in
the eighteenth century to Ricardo and Marx in the nineteenth century, to
Keynes and Buchanan in the twentieth century.
That public debt has undergone “unprecedented expansion” of late
reflects two facts. First, until recently, public debts were typically incurred
during wartime, not in peacetime. Second, unlike today, large debt
burdens in the past were usually felt most by less developed nations,
not advanced or industrialized nations. Evidence is abundant that these
new patterns are attributable largely to the spread of ever-more demo-
cratic, fiscally profligate welfare states that expand social insurance and
pension schemes without overtaxing voting majorities,1 and also to
state guarantees of fragile financial sectors,2 which promote excessive
risk-taking (“moral hazard”) while necessitating periodic public absorp-
tions of defaulted private debts.3 Equally unprecedented (and reckless)
is the recent adoption of zero or negative interest rate policies by major
central banks, which help highly leveraged sovereigns borrow at artificially
low rates, and enable still more public borrowing and ever-rising rates of
public leverage.
The great American statesman and finance minister Alexander Hamilton
(1795) was the first to identify the relationship between unrestrained
democracy (with purely “popular” instead of constitutional government)
and unmitigated growth in public debt:
1
2 The political economy of public debt
and rising public leverage ratios are unsustainable and will likely bring
national insolvency and perpetual economic stagnation. When public
debts become excessive or unpayable, pessimists advise explicit default
or repudiation. They also tend to view financiers in general and public
bondholders in particular as unproductive. Pessimists also usually endorse
smaller-sized governments and free markets. With few exceptions, most
public debt pessimists appear in the classical or public choice schools
of thought; the most representative are David Hume, Adam Smith, and
James Buchanan.
Public debt optimists believe that government provides not only produc-
tive services, such as infrastructure and social insurance, but also means
of mitigating and correcting supposed “market failures,” such as savings
gluts, economic depressions, inflation, and secular stagnation. Optimists
contend that deficit spending and public debt accumulation can stimulate
or sustain economy activity and ensure full employment, without burden-
ing either present or future generations. To the extent that public debts
become excessive, optimists tend to recommend default, whether explicitly
or implicitly (by an inflationary debasement of the currency). Like pes-
simists, the optimists view financiers and bondholders as essentially
unproductive, but unlike pessimists they defend a larger economic role
for the state. Almost without exception, optimists reside in the Keynesian
school of political-economic thought. Among the leading optimists, the
most representative are Alvin Hansen and Abba Lerner.
Public debt realists contend that government can and should provide
certain productive services, mainly national defense, police protection,
courts of justice, and basic infrastructure, but that social and redistributive
schemes tend to undermine national prosperity. Realists say public debt
should fund only services and projects that help a free economy maximize
its potential, and that analysis must be contextualized – that is, related to
a nation’s credit capacity, productivity, and taxable capacity. According to
realists, public leverage is neither inevitably harmful, as pessimists say, nor
infinite, as optimists say. Realists view financiers as productive and insist
that sovereigns redeem their public debts in full, on time, and in sound
money. Realists favor constitutionally limited yet energetic governments
that help promote robust markets. They appear mainly in the classical era
of political-economic thought. The most representative and renowned of
the public debt realists are Sir James Steuart and Alexander Hamilton.
Public debt pessimists and optimists differ from realists primarily in the
way that they omit crucial context; whereas pessimists focus on the down-
side of public debt and de-emphasize its upside, optimists focus on the
upside of it while de-emphasizing its downside. Realists, in contrast, tend
to consult the wider, most relevant context.
Introduction 5
A main thesis of this work is that the public debt realists provide the
most persuasive theories and plausible interpretations of the long, fasci-
nating history of public debt. Moreover, certain puzzles and paradoxes in
contemporary public debt experience – including the recent, multi-decade
trend of a simultaneous rise in public leverage ratios and decline in public
debt yields, among developed nations – is explicable mainly in realist terms.
In contrast, pessimists and optimists alike offer unbalanced, inadequate
accounts of the public debt record: whereas pessimists are confused or
mistaken in foreseeing an alleged “inevitable” ruin from public debt, opti-
mists are confused and mistaken about the alleged economic “stimulus”
attainable by large-scale deficit spending and debt build-ups. Looking to
the future, the realist perspective will likely provide better interpretations
of public debt policies and trends.
Credit is the most relevant context for debt. The limit of public debt
(see Chapter 5) is circumscribed by public credit, or a sovereign’s capac-
ity to borrow. The greater is public credit relative to public debt, the safer
and cheaper is the borrowing, and the greater the possibility of further
borrowing at affordable rates. A sovereign may have too much debt relative
to its credit, but its credit alone can never be excessive. As Hamilton (1795)
put it, public credit is the power “to borrow at pleasure considerable sums
on moderate terms, the art of distributing over a succession of years the
extraordinary efforts found indispensable in one, a means of accelerating
the prompt employment of all the abilities of a nation.” As such, “there
can be no time, no state of things, in which Credit is not essential to a
Nation.” Moreover, national credit must rest “on grounds which cannot
be disturbed” and fiscal affairs managed so as “to prevent that progressive
accumulation of debt which must ultimately endanger all government.”
Prior to exploring the theory of public credit and debt in the works of
the leading thinkers of the classical (Chapter 2), Keynesian (Chapter 3),
and public choice (Chapter 4) schools, I present the three-century empiri-
cal record of public debt (Chapter 1). The schools aren’t homogeneous on
public debt theory; pessimists, optimists, and realists can be found in each,
although pessimists tend to congregate in the classical and public choice
schools, while optimists reside in the Keynesian school and realists in the
classical school. Having identified distinct strains of pessimism, optimism,
and realism, and having learned that the realist approach is more persua-
sive and consistent with history, I apply this perspective to current debate
on the limits of public debt (Chapter 5). Each approach has its proponents
in the contemporary debate, but Chapter 5 conveys realism’s distinctive
analytic advantage.
In examining the three schools of thought, I seek answers to questions
on three levels: nature, causes, and consequences:
6 The political economy of public debt
Ideology and political regime types also influence public debt policies.
Normatively, they reflect public preferences about the proper purpose,
size, and scope of government, and how public goods should be funded.
Positively, they reflect fiscal-monetary institutions, which in turn influence
saving, investment, production, interest rates, and prices. Whether public
debt is deemed harmful, beneficial, or innocuous, at root it’s a fiscal deriva-
tive of deeper factors; its value ultimately reflects citizens’ demands for
public goods relative to their willingness and ability to pay for them through
taxes, and investors’ willingness and capacity to buy and hold public bonds.
Introduction 7
The philosophy of deficit financing is but one part of a program that creates
basic changes in the reactions of people that, per se, are sufficient to destroy the
system of Capitalism, [which] rests upon the institution of private property, is
motivated by the profit motive, and directed by a price mechanism function-
ing through the media of the market place. . . Planned economies – of which
a cardinal feature is the policy of deficit financing – are directly opposed to
the continuation of the milieu required for the preservation of the capitalist
system. . . The presence of a national debt created and enlarged for the purpose
of eradicating unemployment will produce an environment that is not condu-
cive to the preservation of the capitalist system. If this proposition is true, then
either the program of deficit financing or the capitalistic system must be aban-
doned. But when, in a democratic society, this condition becomes apparent, it
will be impossible to abandon deficit financing and, hence, the alternative must
be the abandonment of the capitalistic system.
The public debt realists that I examine in this work tend to be more
attentive to moral-political-legal issues than their pessimistic and optimis-
tic counterparts. The realist is able to acknowledge genuinely bad times but
also to find a way out. At the end of its Revolutionary War, America was
effectively bankrupt. Incorporating a realist perspective in a 1781 letter
to Robert Morris (then Superintendent of Finance for the Continental
Congress), a young Alexander Hamilton advised against extreme assess-
ments of public credit, and against the notion that public debt is either an
unalloyed benefit or latent harm. “No wise statesman will reject the good
from an apprehension of the ill,” he wrote:
The truth is, in human affairs, there is no good, pure and unmixed. Every
advantage has two sides, and wisdom consists in availing ourselves of the good
and guarding as much as possible against the bad. . . A national debt, if it is
not excessive, will be to us a national blessing. It will be powerful cement of our
union. It will also create a necessity for keeping up taxation to such a degree
which, without being oppressive, will be a spur to industry.11
NOTES
1. On the burgeoning welfare state, see Browning (2008). On “democracy in deficit” see
Buchanan and Wagner (1977 [1999]), Crain and Ekelund (1978), Balkan and Greene
(1990), Plumper and Martin (2003), Gillette (2004, 2008), Ferguson (2006), Eusepi
and Giuriato (2008), Bruner (2009), Arezki and Brückner (2010), Kane (2012), McKee
and Roche (2012), Motha (2012), Wagner (2012a, 2012b, 2012c), and Catrina (2014).
Addressing recent public debt crises, Bragues (2011) believes “the fault ultimately lies
with democracy. Among the many lessons the current crisis is enjoining us to learn,
the most important is how the political incentives embedded in the architecture of
democracy conduce to the inordinate buildup of public debt. Chronic deficits have
usually been at the root of monetary-policy failures in the past when central bankers
came under heavy pressure to print money as a politically convenient way to repay the
huge public debt. The deeply held belief that democracy is the best regime keeps us from
noticing all its imperfections.”
2. Calomiris and Haber (2014) attribute financial sector fragility to populist political pres-
sures. In earlier studies Salsman (1990, 2013a, 2013b) attributed the fragility to modern
central banks devoted more to enabling democratic overseers and underwriting profli-
gate sovereigns than to ensuring sound money or safe banking.
3. Ciumas et al. (2012) find “strong empirical evidence for the hypothesis that imbal-
ances built up in the private sector would eventually spill over to the public sector
under the form of government deficit and increased public debt.” See also Breton et
al. (2012, p. 57): “In financial crises, private debts typically turn into public debt” and
“sovereign debt may balloon out of control because of actions taken to prevent the
collapse of banking systems.” See also Per Tiwari et al. (2015, p. 2): “banking sector
Introduction 11
expansions” “can create significant risks for the sovereign”; “When banking sector
vulnerabilities unravel in banking crises, the risks to the sovereign are further exacer-
bated by the high fiscal cost of related crisis management policies, particularly bank
bailouts [which are more likely] in countries with larger and more leveraged banking
sectors.”
4. US Department of the Treasury (2000). See also Reinhart and Sack (2000) and
Kestenbaum (2011).
5. Reinhart (2012) and Brenner and Fridson (2013).
6. Turner (2011), Blommestein and Turner (2012a), and Moessner et al. (2012).
7. On public debt incidence and burdens, see Matsushita (1929), Wright (1940), Smith
(1941), Ratchford (1942), Domar (1944), Reinhardt (1945), Cohen (1951), Meade
(1958), Bowen et al. (1960), Lerner (1961), Modigliani (1961), Neisser (1961), Mishan
(1963), Buchanan (1964a, 1967a), Tullock (1964), Daly (1969), West (1975), Cavaco-
Silva (1977), Barro (1980), Backhaus et al. (1987), Buchanan and Roback (1987), Stern
(1987), Toshihiro (1988), Blanchard and Missale (1994), Gale and Orszag (2003), Michl
(2006), Yarrow (2008), Laubach (2009), Reinhart and Rogoff (2010), Krugman (2011d),
and Otaki (2015).
8. On ideology in politics see Hinich and Munger (1994). On the political economy of
public debt see Musgrave (1959), Roubini and Sachs (1989), Verbon and Van Winden
(1993), Brubaker (1997), Neck and Getzner (2001), Winer and Shibata (2002), Bruner
and Abdelal (2005), Brennan (2012), Wagner (2012c), and Theocarakis (2014).
9. Buchanan (1964b) and Wagner (2012a).
10. See Time (1965), Hicks (1975), Feldstein (1981), and Palmer (1990). More recently, see
Giles et al. (2008), Meacham (2009), and Skidelsky (2009).
11. Hamilton (1781 [1961]).
1. A brief history of public debt
A concise history of public debt is a prerequisite to understanding its
causes and consequences. Historical context helps corroborate or confute
alternative theories and analytical methods. The good news is that hard
data on public debt and its history have become more comprehensive,
more accurate, and more readily available in recent years.1 Unfortunately,
much contemporary analysis is overly formal, non-empirical, or focused
myopically on a narrow subset of public debt history that’s not representa-
tive of its timeless and valid principles. By one selective reading public debt
may appear sinful, wasteful, and burdensome – by another, moral, produc-
tive, and beneficial – and by another still, neither harmful nor beneficial
but merely innocuous.
12
A brief history of public debt 13
attitude toward lending at interest, there would not have been so great
an increase in debt of any kind, including public debt. The more favora-
ble philosophical-cultural attitude toward economic activity and capital
accumulation in general that was so characteristic of the Renaissance and
Enlightenment also made available more lendable funds. Yet the latent
and age-old (ancient-medieval) animosity toward bankers and lenders has
never totally dissipated; it was revived in the mid-nineteenth century by
Karl Marx, with his prejudice against “rentiers” as parasites who induce a
late, crisis-ridden phase of capitalism, “finance capitalism.”6 Antagonism
towards creditors made it easier (and morally obligatory) for overextended
borrowers, mainly sovereigns, to renege on debts or demand forgiveness.7
In contrast, under the classical gold standard era (1870–1913) sovereigns
were better behaved, more credible, and more creditworthy.8
Prior to the seventeenth-century Renaissance and eighteenth-century
Enlightenment in Europe, lending to governments meant lending
personally to rulers, usually monarchs or popes (Cahill, 2010). But these
were largely the personal debts of the rulers, incurred mainly to wage war,
repel invasion, or fund infrastructure projects; technically they were not
“public” debts, in the sense of being based on the paying capacity of the
general public. These were state debts, repayable from the spoils of war or
by the crown’s tax revenues or wealth transfers. Instead of relying on the
precarious practice of borrowing funds under emergency settings like war,
monarchs, princes, and popes preferred instead to amass riches and armies
in advance.
Indeed, mercantilism as a system not only of protectionism and
regulation but also of public finance, precisely favored policies that built
up, ex ante, the cash holdings of the king and his nation-state, if necessary
at the expense of citizens or other nations. The aim of a “favorable balance
of trade,” or net exports of goods in excess of their importation, was a
net importation of money (or specie). In this way a monarch amassed a
“war chest” and didn’t have to borrow. In France, mercantilism was per-
sonified in finance minister Colbert (1619–83). The German counterpart
to mercantilism was Cameralism, or the art and science of efficiently
administering royal finances.
Source: www.ukpublicspending.com.
Source: www.ukpublicspending.com.
Source: www.ukpublicspending.com.
public interest expense is a mere 2.2 percent of its annual GDP, or less than
a quarter of the 9.5 percent burden felt at the end of World War II and the
still higher burden of 10 percent recorded at the end of the Napoleonic
Wars in 1815. Indeed, today’s ratio of 2.2 percent is lower than the ratio
of 2.5 percent seen prior to the multi-year expansion of public debt that
began a century ago on the eve of World War I.
Figure 1.3 plots the long-term ratio of annual government spending
in the United Kingdom, also as a percentage of annual national income
(GDP). We see a saw-toothed but upward climb in the relative size of the
British government between 1700 and 1815, but then a long-term decline
from roughly 33 percent of the economy in 1815 to less than 10 percent
between 1850 and 1900. The spending share reaches the astounding heights
of 57 percent amid World War I and 70 percent amid World War II, but
today’s share, at 41 percent, is almost half the level of the previous record
high and, despite increases in the role and scope of the British welfare
state, the spending share has generally declined from 48 percent in 1981.
Figure 1.4 shows the long-term trend in the public debt/GDP ratio of the
United States soon after its founding in 1790. Today’s ratio is 100 percent,
nearly triple the recent low of 35 percent in 1982, but also below the all-time
high of nearly 120 percent set in World War II. Wars have been the main
cause of spikes in the US debt ratio – up to 18 percent at the end of the war
of 1812, to 34 percent by the end of the Civil War, 37 percent at the end of
20 The political economy of public debt
Source: www.usgovernmentspending.com.
World War I, and 125 percent after the end of World War II. The latest rise
in the US debt ratio might also be attributed to war, to the “war on terror-
ism,” which has been more expensive (inflation-adjusted) than all prior US
wars except World War II. The secular rise in the debt ratio since 1975 also
reflects entitlement spending.
The more recent, dramatic rise in the US debt ratio is due to the large
revenue loss and deficit spending associated with the financial crisis and
Great Recession (2008–09) and thus more resembles the period of banking
failures and Great Depression of the 1930s, when the US debt ratio doubled
from 18 percent to 36 percent. Thereafter, due to the deficit spending
associated with World War II, it tripled from 36 percent to 125 percent.
Figure 1.5 plots US public interest expense as a portion of GDP since
1800. Despite a high debt ratio lately (Figure 1.4), the interest-expense
ratio remains relatively low, at 1.4 percent, because the average interest rate
on US public debt has been very low compared to prior decades (1980s
and 1990s). The record ratio occurred in the late 1980s, when the US debt
ratio was only 68 percent but interest rates were much higher. From 1985 to
1990 the US ten-year Treasury bond yield averaged 8.75 percent, but over
the past five years, even under a much higher debt ratio, it has averaged a
mere 3.25 percent.
A brief history of public debt 21
Source: www.usgovernmentspending.com.
Source: www.usgovernmentspending.com.
Nation 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Australia 38.8 61.2 70.3 67.7 109.8 48.3 35.0 18.7 10.0 10.8 11.3
Austria 67.1 38.4 19.3 44.3 22.1 13.6 10.6 25.2 46.0 58.2 61.4
Belgium 49.6 102.7 57.5 73.7 73.7 69.7 48.3 53.6 106.6 99.6 98.2
Canada 28.2 41.6 55.4 48.4 111.0 61.7 42.7 34.1 66.1 66.3 54.3
France 79.6 185.5 142.9 – 27.4 22.1 12.4 20.9 35.2 57.3 78.5
Germany 46.6 – – – 17.5 18.8 17.4 30.0 41.0 59.7 78.8
Italy 76.2 142.3 111.4 93.3 32.3 32.8 30.9 53.5 96.3 105.9 117.5
23
Japan 70.1 25.3 47.3 78.5 41.3 8.4 8.5 51.4 68.0 142.0 225.9
Netherlands 70.0 59.6 75.6 119.8 141.0 78.7 49.6 45.4 75.8 53.8 67.4
Norway 26.9 15.1 35.8 23.3 43.9 41.8 32.9 47.3 28.9 34.2 54.3
Spain 89.7 44.4 58.9 71.8 46.2 30.0 18.0 14.7 42.6 59.3 63.5
Sweden 16.6 11.6 17.3 24.6 36.5 27.8 26.8 39.3 41.2 53.2 41.7
Switzerland 32.9 – 22.7 42.1 39.6 15.9 5.9 13.2 32.2 51.8 39.5
United Kingdom 31.7 130.7 161.6 110.0 194.2 106.8 64.2 41.3 27.4 33.3 72.0
United States 7.9 29.4 17.7 42.4 87.6 54.4 35.7 32.6 55.7 57.0 89.9
Averages 48.8 68.3 42.1 29.3 34.7 51.5 62.8 76.9
Note: * Includes federal, state, and local government spending for comparability.
Table 1.3 The paradox of profligacy: higher public debt leverage, yet lower
borrowing rates, G-7 nations, 1980–2015
advanced nations (250 percent, per Table 1.3) is due partly to relatively
faster spending but also to slower revenue growth since its economy
effectively peaked in 1989.
Despite abundant evidence of sharp increases in public spending shares
of GDP in recent decades, with a concomitant expansion in deficit spend-
ing and public leverage, Table 1.3 reveals how this has not translated into
higher public borrowing costs. In the private sector, all else equal, greater
leverage entails a greater risk of debt default, which in turn induces credi-
tors to demand compensation in the form of higher yields. Yet Table 1.3
makes clear that even though public debt ratios for the G-7 nations have
increased steadily in recent decades – from an average of 37.7 percent in
1980 to 74.5 percent in 2000 and 116.0 percent in 2015 – their average
benchmark (ten-year) Treasury yields have decreased – from an average of
11.9 percent to 5.0 percent in 2000 and just 1.3 percent in 2015. I designate
this odd phenomenon the “paradox of profligacy,” and seek to explain
it later in the book (Chapter 5). It could be argued that inordinately low
bond yields reflect a rational market’s view that no profligacy exists in fact,
or instead that profligacy prevails but yields have moved lower due to a
multi-decade disinflation and, more recently, to financial repression and
central banks’ zero interest rate policies.
No history of public debt can exclude the increasing role of central
banks, which issue a government’s monopolized money and underwrite
its bonds. Once deemed “lenders of last resort” to private banks, they now
also act as lenders of last resort to profligate governments. The power
26 The political economy of public debt
and reach of central banking expands virtually without limit with each
new decade, especially amid the crises it instigates. Public debt analysts
now routinely consolidate the balance sheets of central banks and their
needy sovereigns, treating them as one. Central bank “independence” from
politics and finance ministries, once considered the sine qua non of proper
policymaking, is now a mere shibboleth.
To many economists and historians, the spread of central banking and
fiat paper money systems in the past century was a “fix” for a “market
failure” in free banking and the gold standard. Yet the origins and evolu-
tion of central banking suggest otherwise. Most central banks originated
in a sovereign’s desperate need to secure funds that it couldn’t otherwise
obtain by taxes or voluntarily loans. Some began as private banks com-
pelled to lend to deadbeat sovereigns; upon becoming insolvent due to
defaults on public loans, they were conveniently nationalized and trans-
formed into government-privileged central banks with monopoly control
over fiat currencies that eventually displaced gold and silver in private
bank reserves and as circulating media. This was the pattern by which most
modern central banks were established, including the first two, in the late
seventeenth century: the Swedish Riksbank, established in 1688 upon the
takeover of a private bank initially founded in 1656 but which failed, and
Britain’s Bank of England, established in 1694 as a means of financing yet
another war with France.
Britain’s modern public debt was launched when William III arranged
for the sale of public debt through a syndicate of London merchants;
in time this syndicate was formed into the Bank of England. In similar
ways and for the same purpose – financial support for the state – central
banks were established in Denmark (1773), France (1800), Austria (1816),
Norway (1816), Belgium (1850), Netherlands (1864), Germany (1875),
Japan (1882), Italy (1893), Switzerland (1905), the United States (1913)
and Canada (1933).12
Until the 1930s major central banks issued currency redeemable into a
fixed weight of gold, and governments in industrially advanced nations
pledged to redeem their bonds in gold-convertible money. But since central
banks were established mainly to assist governments in funding,13 they
also purchased large sums of public debt – especially in wartime – and
used that asset as a basis for money creation. In this way the classical gold
coin standard (1870–1913) was abandoned, amid World War I, in favor of
the more centralized gold bullion standard, which in turn was abandoned
in 1933 amid the Great Depression. That was followed by a paper-based
gold exchange standard (the Bretton Woods system), whereby the US
dollar was the worldwide reserve currency and the only one redeemable
in gold (albeit solely for other central banks). Since the abandonment of
A brief history of public debt 27
Much attention and analytical effort has been devoted in recent decades to
the drama associated with explicit defaults on public debts, but as scholars
have shown, such defaults are nothing new. 14 More unexpected perhaps is
the fact that more highly leveraged sovereigns have been able to borrow so
cheaply in recent years; given that they can, still larger increases in public
leverage are likely over the coming decades.
The US government has recorded budget deficits totaling $7.6 trillion
in the past decade (2006–15); nearly 25 percent of total spending in this
time has been financed by loans instead of tax revenues, nearly quadruple
the 6 percent share of spending that was borrowed in the post-World War
II decades through 2005. For comparison, 35 percent of US spending was
borrowed during the Great Depression (1930–39), and 51 percent during
its involvement in World War II (1941–45). Looking ahead, budget ana-
lysts project that US federal deficits, despite having narrowed somewhat
in recent years, will resume widening over the coming decade, such that
total US public debt will continue increasing, both in absolute amount and
relative to GDP (Figure 1.8).
Fast-rising public debts will remain a potential problem and thus a
crucial issue in the coming decades. Welfare states will continue to face
28 The political economy of public debt
Notes: * Includes only federal debt held by the public, which is less than gross debt.
CBO Congressional Budget Office.
NOTES
1. See the public debt databases of the IMF, World Bank, OECD, and BIS plus Tomz
(2007), Abbas et al. (2011), Jaimovich and Panizza (2010), Das et al. (2012), Enderlein
et al. (2012), Janus et al. (2013), Beers and Nadeau (2015), Bloch and Fall (2015),
Dembiermont et al. (2015), and Bova et al. (2016).
2. North and Weingast (1989), Weingast (1997), and MacDonald (2003).
3. Bastable (1903), Birck (1927), Brewer (1989), Brantlinger (1996), Mueller (1997),
Bonney (1999), Botticini (2000), Bordo and Cortes-Conde (2001), Schofield and
A brief history of public debt 29
Mayhew (2002), Stasavage (2002, 2003, 2007, 2011, 2015), Cahill (2010), Cardoso and
Lains (2010), Graeber (2011), and Strangio (2013).
4. Webber and Wildavsky (1986), Shatzmiller (1989), Homer and Sylla (1991), Glaeser and
Scheinkman (1998), Armstrong (2003), and Dyson (2014).
5. Nelson (1949), Jones (1990), Shatzmiller (1989), Glaeser and Scheinkman (1998), Reed
and Bekar (2003), Brook (2007), and Cahill (2010).
6. The prejudice persists today: Pollin (1996), Hudson (2010), Krugman (2011a, 2014),
Konczal (2013), and Baiman (2014).
7. Suter (1992), Coleman (1999), Skeel (2003), and Mann (2009).
8. Bordo and Rockoff (1996) and Esteves (2013).
9. R. Hamilton (1816), E.J. Hamilton (1947), North and Weingast (1989), Root (1989,
1994), Dickson (1993), Brewer (1989), Homer and Sylla (1991), Neal (1993), Bonney
(1999), Hoffman and Norberg (2002), Stasavage (2003, 2007, 2011), Johnson (2006),
Dincecco (2009), and Carey and Finlay (2011).
10. Boltho and Glyn (2006), Altman and Haass (2010), and Dincecco (2010).
11. Ross (1892), Bordo and Rockoff (1996), Sylla and Wilson (1999), Selgin and White
(2005), Dove (2012), and Murphy (2013).
12. Timberlake (1978, 2012), Goodhart (1988), Toniolo (1988), Volcker (1990), Vaubel
(1997), and Fry (1997).
13. Selgin and White (1999), Wood (2012), and Salsman (2013a, 2013b).
14. Eichengreen and Portes (1986), Suter (1992), English (1996), Sturzenegger and
Zettelmeyer (2006), Kohlscheen (2007), Reinhart and Rogoff (2009), Oosterlinck
(2013), Rampell (2013), Tomz and Wright (2013), Beers and Nadeau (2015), Altamura
and Zendejas (2016), and Reinhart et al. (2016).
2. Classical theories of public debt
Classical theories of public debt in the eighteenth century were developed
during the Enlightenment, a period dominated by respect for reason,
science, and liberal ideas, a greater appreciation (relative to the medieval
times) for the virtues of self- interest, the benefits of commerce and
finance, and the need for constitutionally limited and rights-respecting
government. This political-legal context proved crucial to the development
of public credit and debt and theories about each.1
30
Classical theories of public debt 31
some authors offered sanguine views, arguing that public debt was
preferable to oppressive taxation or monetary debasement, and could
prove beneficial for the state and economy alike, if managed prudently
(with a plan for e xtinguishment via sinking funds). Notable in this group
are Charles Davenant, Jean-François Melon, George Berkeley, Isaac de
Pinto, Sir James Steuart, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Malthus.
Some scholars interpret these “optimists” as precursors of the Keynesian
view that prevailed in the twentieth century, but in truth they lie between
overpessimistic classical views and overoptimistic Keynesian views.
In the United States during the classical period, Hamiltonian financial
principles drew more upon optimistic views of public debt, while
Jeffersonian financial principles embodied the pessimism of more widely
read classical thinkers. Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson differed
pointedly over whether government should borrow at all, whether it should
fully pay its debts (even when trading at a discount), whether the currency
in which debts were to be repaid should be gold backed and of uniform
consistency nationally, whether public obligations should extend to future
generations or instead be cancelled, and whether private banking was
legitimate. On all such questions Hamilton answered in the affirmative,
Jefferson in the negative.2
As with modern public debt theorists, most classical theorists devote
more attention to the incidence of public debt than to its causes and
most believe public debt is detrimental to a nation’s long-term survival,
even while acknowledging that such debt is most contracted in war,
when national survival is most at stake. Governments were reluctant to
test wartime patriotism with punitive taxation. If war was a temporary
emergency, borrowing could be a temporary expediency. Budget surpluses
and debt reductions would occur in peacetime. No deeper theory of public
debt causation seemed necessary; at most one asked why some nations
were war prone or why some waged longer wars. Ricardo thought easy
public borrowing, compared to the lesser pain of undertaxed citizens,
made states wage war more often and for longer than necessary.
Classical political economy lasted a century after Adam Smith’s Inquiry
Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776 [1937]), but
the classical economists had precursors and after 1870 their value theory
was recast in neoclassical form, away from cost-of-production theories
towards utility-based theories. Classical public debt theory reflected clas-
sical value theory – leading to suspicions of public debt as inherently
unproductive. The “marginal revolution” of Carl Menger, Stanley Jevons,
and Leon Walras in the 1870s emphasized utility theory and rejected the
labor theory of value that was so unique to the classical system (excepting
J.B. Say). Yet neoclassical public debt theory revived classical school
Classical theories of public debt 33
themes and retrieved them from the Marxian detour. The political trend
reflected in Bismarck’s German welfare state (1880s) and in America’s sub-
sequent populist-progressive era was away from laissez-faire and towards
interventionism. By 1920 the United States had a graduated federal income
tax (91 percent being the highest rate), a central bank (Federal Reserve),
and high public leverage (debt at 35 percent of GDP, due to World War I,
versus only 8 percent in 1900). There followed a century-long expansion
in the size and scope of most governments and public debts, even in
peacetime, which animated Keynesian theory amid rejections of classical
themes; national thrift was deemed dangerous and deficit spending seen as
a crucial economic stimulant.
Next I convey and assess classical views on the nature, history, moral-
political-economic causes, consequences, and sustainability of public debt.
The first major work comes from Englishman Charles Davenant (1656–
1714), two decades after Britain’s Glorious Revolution (1688), when the
government began borrowing as a sovereign on the credit of the public
at large, represented by king and Parliament jointly, and not alone on the
king’s personal credit. Davenant, a pre-Revolution Tory MP who had lost
substantial capital in unpaid loans to Charles II, became an a uthority
on British public debt in the 1690s. According to Sir James Steuart, in
1767, “no person” besides Davenant “appears to have so thoroughly
understood” public debt at the time. In 1695 Davenant issues the Ways
and Means of Supplying the War, advising that Britain’s war versus the
Dutch be funded exclusively by excise taxes. The subtitle of his Essay Upon
the National Credit of England (1710) conveys his aim: “To Render the
Public Credit Highly Beneficial to the Government, Trade and People of
this Kingdom.” No critic of public debt, Davenant merely tries to place
it on sounder footing. British officials had been in constant conflict with
creditors, sometimes addressing their self-interest, but other times punish-
ing them for charging high interest. Davenant says public debts should be
of short maturity, to ensure their liquidity; he warns against long-term
bonds as volatile, illiquid, and prone to political abuse (default).
In the quarter-century following Davenant’s 1695 book, Britain’s public
debt nearly tripled, from £17 million to £47 million. As some writers
worried about the rising burden, Jean-François Melon (1675–1738), a
French mercantilist, declared, in A Political Essay Upon Commerce (1738),
that worry was unjustified, because “the debts of the state are debts owed
34 The political economy of public debt
by the right hand to the left, by which the body will be in no way weakened
if it has the nourishment and is able to distribute it.” Thus Melon is the first
to argue, in effect, that regarding public debt “we owe it to ourselves” – that
the more a nation owes, the more it also owns. A bond is a debtor’s liability
yet also a creditor’s asset. New public debt entails no new net burden but
also no net wealth. Melon’s qualifiers are crucial: a state borrows safely
if it “has the nourishment” (tax revenues) to service its debt and if it “is
able to distribute” its debt (it has the credibility to attract buyers). Melon
also implies that public debt can become excessive if tax revenues are defi-
cient or bond buyers scarce (or demand high rates). “Countries of great
productions, and free from the dread of [the] revolutions which overturn
states, will always be, whether in peace or in war, wealthy and powerful
when the credits and the circulations are proportioned to their wants.”
Melon rejects claims that “an unlimited quantity of debt is advantageous”
to a nation, for that is “running into extremes.” He suggests that a limit
exists at which public debt is unsafe, but doesn’t specify. He denies that
some regime types are inherently more creditworthy. “Debts contracted
by republics are no better secured than others,” he writes, although “it is
to this credit that the republics owe their wealth and their power.” At root,
“the basis of credit is a security in the public contracts.” Melon is best clas-
sified as a realist on public debt, not as an optimist, as some might suggest.
Soon after Melon’s book appeared in 1734 he found support for his views
from philosopher George (Bishop) Berkeley (1685–1753), who touches
on the topic briefly in The Querist (third volume, 1737). Unlike Melon,
Berkeley is an optimist who sees no downside. “That which increases the
stock [public debt] of a nation,” he writes, is “a means of increasing its
trade,” and “the credit of the public funds” entails not only “a mine of
gold to England” but “the principal advantage that England has over
France [and] every other country in Europe.” Moreover, the “ruinous
effects of absurd schemes and credit mismanaged” isn’t attributable to
state-sponsored national banks, as long as they promote industry instead
of speculation. Soon thereafter, Nicolas Dutot (1684–1741) tries to refute
Berkeley’s sanguine view, in Reflexions Politiques sur les Finances et le
Commerce (1738). Dutot had worked at John Law’s French bank before
its collapse in the wake of the South Sea “bubble” (1720–23). Law, armed
with royal charters and a scheme to aid an underfunded French monarch,
tried to boost demand for French bonds with a fraudulent paper-money
bank; after a boom it busted, as did royal bonds. Dutot became a harsh
critic of public debt, as did Montesquieu (1689–1755).
In his Spirit of Laws (1752 [1777]) Montesquieu notes how “some have
imagined that it was for the advantage of the state to be indebted to itself:
they thought that multiplied riches by increasing the circulation.” But
Classical theories of public debt 35
“those who are of this opinion have confounded a circulating paper which
represents money, or a circulating paper which is the sign of the profits that
a company has, or will make by commerce, with a paper which represents
a debt. The two first are extremely advantageous to the state: the last can
never be so: and all that we can expect from it is, that individuals have a
good security from the government for their money” (Book XXII, Chapter
XVII, “Of Public Debts”). He questions the mercantilists’ aim of maximiz-
ing the domestic money supply (gold and silver); they believed sovereign
bonds induced people to hoard less money, freed them to pay more in taxes,
and served as a readier, more liquid asset source for the state. Montesquieu
rejects these claims and stresses the “inconveniencies” of public debt. First,
“if foreigners possess much paper which represent a debt, they annually
draw out of the nation a considerable sum for interest.” That would con-
found the mercantilist aim of having money flowing in rather than out of
a nation. Second, “a nation that is thus perpetually in debt, ought to have
the exchange very low.” Third, “the taxes raised for the payment of the
interest of the debt are a hurt to the manufactures, by raising the price of
the artificer’s labor.” Fourth, public debt “takes the true revenue of the state
from those who have activity and industry, to convey it to the indolent; that
is, it gives the benefits for laboring to those who do not labor, and clogs
with difficulties the industrious artist.” All told, he c oncludes, “I know of
no advantages.” Clearly, Montesquieu is a public debt pessimist. It creates
no new wealth. It’s a liability exchanged for an asset (money) given by a
lender, and it may even diminish wealth to the degree it raises business
costs, rewards indolence, and saps incentives to produce. He surmises
that “people are thrown perhaps into this error” because they believe “the
paper which represents the debt of a nation is the sign of riches.” They are
deluded: seeing no decline in the value of public debt they think “it is a
proof that the state has other riches besides,” because it seems “none but
a rich state can support such paper.” People are contradictory when they
claim that public debt “is not an evil because there are resources against it”
yet also “an advantage, since these resources surpass the evil.”
Elsewhere in the Spirit of Laws, Montesquieu addresses debt repay-
ment (Book XXII, Chapter XVIII, “Of the Payment of Public Debt”).
“There should be a proportion between the state as creditor and the state
as debtor,” he contends, for “the state may be a creditor to infinity, but it
can only be a debtor to a certain degree, and when it surpasses that degree,
the title of creditor vanishes.” Here he wonders about a state’s maximum
borrowing capacity. It’s already well known that sovereigns default, but it
isn’t yet clear what principles should govern limits. Credibility is crucial:
“If the credit of the state has never received the least blemish, it may do
what has been so happily practiced in one of the kingdoms of Europe
36 The political economy of public debt
[England]; that is, it may acquire a great quantity of specie, and offer to
reimburse every individual, at least if they will not reduce their interest.”
But this is best achieved by a sinking fund (where the state must “pay every
year a part of the capital”); this boosts creditors’ confidence that bonds
will be repaid. It also fosters a lower borrowing rate.
Sinking funds certainly weren’t a failsafe way to assure wary bondholders.
British finance minister Robert Walpole created the first fund in England
in 1717, but in 1731 it was raided by Parliament to fund n on-debt spend-
ing. Still, Montesquieu saw England as exceptional: a public debtor that
kept its promises, while others (like France) were frequently irresponsible
about credit. Deadbeats could especially benefit by a sinking fund, accord-
ing to Montesquieu, for “when the credit of the state is not entire, there
is a new reason for endeavoring to form a sinking fund, because this fund
being once established, will soon procure the public confidence.” Here
he backtracks a bit on his pessimism and acknowledges cases when risky
public debt is made safe.
On regime types, Montesquieu believes republics better maintain their
credit than monarchies, and constitutionally-limited monarchies better
than absolutist monarchies. Regimes that follow a rule of law earn the
confidence of the law- abiding and wealthy, who lend most; unfaith-
ful sovereigns are capricious and risky. A republic “in its own nature”
is “consistent with its entering into projects of a long duration” and so
needn’t place as much capital in a sinking fund; a monarchy, in contrast,
is less trusted and so must set aside more in its sinking fund, or else pay a
higher interest rate.
As for securing stable tax revenues to service debt, Montesquieu advises
reliance on a wide tax base; if only the rich are taxed, they’re made to pay
for their own interest income, but it’s risky. “The regulations ought to be
so ordered, that all the subjects of the state may support the weight of the
establishment of these funds,” he writes, “because they have all the weight
of the establishment of the debt.” Montesquieu identifies four classes
who service public debts: land proprietors, trade merchants, laborers-
artificers, and annuitants. The last class, typically the richest, should be
taxed relatively more (they “ought least to be spared” taxes) because they
are “entirely passive, while the state is supported by the active vigor of the
other three.” Montesquieu endorses the false and prejudicial anti-rentier
premise held by most classical theorists: that financiers are not astute
judges of productive ability and rational allocators of remunerative capital
but instead unproductive and parasitical. At least he opposes overtaxing
them, for they “cannot be higher taxed without destroying the public con-
fidence, of which the state in general, and these three classes in particular,
have the utmost need.” The paradox is plain: the “passive,” supposedly
Classical theories of public debt 37
In his essay, “Of Public Credit” (1752 [1987], Part II, Essay IX), David
Hume (1711–76) insists that sovereign borrowing breeds “poverty,”
national “impotence,” and “subjection to foreign powers.” It is, he warns,
“a practice which appears ruinous, beyond all controversy.” Hume is a debt
pessimist. Indeed, he predicts that Britain will be insolvent in under a half-
century – that is, by 1800. “Either the nation must destroy public credit,
or public credit will destroy the nation,” he contends, and adds that he’d
prefer the destruction of public credit, because creditors are outnumbered
by citizens unfairly harmed by the burdensome taxes needed to service
large debts. Hume doesn’t explain why public debt defaults or repudiations
won’t also inflict harm on a nation.
In the half-century before Hume wrote “Of Public Credit,” Britain’s
public debt more than quintupled, from £14 million (1700) to £77 million
(1750). By the time of Hume’s death in 1776 the debt had risen to
£127 million; had he seen it climb to £427 million by 1800 he would have
felt his forecast vindicated. Yet Britain’s public debt peaked at £819 million
in 1819, after the Napoleonic Wars (1803–15), and declined steadily
thereafter to just £569 million by 1900. Far from being “ruined,” the
nineteenth century was the heyday of Britain’s empire; peace reigned and
output boomed. Of course, GDP data weren’t available in Hume’s time;
yet he and most classical theorists rarely cited any statistics that did exist
and might have provided context. Thus, few were debt realists. They’d cite
absolute levels of public debt but not relate them to a sovereign’s capacity
to generate the tax revenues necessary for debt service. Data now in hand,
we now know that Britain’s public debt increased from just 22 percent
of GDP in 1700 to 105 percent in 1750 before peaking at 255 percent in
1819; thereafter, public leverage (public debt/GDP) declined to 100 percent
(1876) and a low of 25 percent before World War I (see Chapter 1,
Figure 1.1). While Hume correctly foresaw a rise in Britain’s debt level,
38 The political economy of public debt
Republics usually impose light tax burdens, so can’t easily service public
debts; in contrast, “where a government has mortgaged all its revenues,”
it “necessarily sinks into a state of languor, inactivity, and impotence.”
Popular states are more secure electorally, yet more precarious fiscally.
In “Of Public Credit” (Part II, Essay IX) Hume says he prefers ancient
to modern methods of public finance. In ancient times states accumu-
lated treasure in advance of emergencies (mainly war) because they were
unable or unwilling to borrow when trouble arrived. He notes how public
borrowing is a more recent (seventeenth-century) phenomenon, but insists
it burdens future generations (“posterity”) and that “ancient maxims are,
in this respect, more prudent than the modern” ones. He doesn’t explain
why, in the absence of debt, no equivalent burden is felt by current gen-
erations who must pay the taxes necessary to meet emergencies; instead
he assails “our modern expedient, which has become very general. . .to
mortgage the public revenues, and to trust that posterity will pay off
the encumbrances contracted by their ancestors.” It’s “a practice which
appears ruinous, beyond all controversy.” For Hume, fiscal maxims in the
political realm should mirror those in a household, “for why should the
case be so different between the public and an individual, as to make us
establish different maxims of conduct for each? If the funds of the former
be greater, its expenses are also proportionately larger” and although
“its resources be more numerous, they are not infinite.” Yes, “abuses of
[accumulated] treasures can be dangerous, either by engaging the state
in rash enterprises, or making it neglect military discipline, in confi-
dence of its riches,” but “the abuses of mortgaging are more certain and
inevitable: poverty, impotence, and subjection to foreign powers.” Hume
prefers that public funding rely on ex ante treasure, not ex post borrowing.
Reiterating the theme of his 1741 essay (“Of Civil Liberty”), that popular
governments are more prone to “mortgaging posterity,” in his 1752 essay,
“Of Public Credit,” Hume posits a motive: “It is very tempting to a
[finance] minister to employ such an expedient, as enables him to make a
great figure during his administration, without overburdening the people
with taxes, or exciting any immediate clamors against himself. The prac-
tice, therefore, of contracting debt will almost infallibly be abused, in every
government. It would scarcely be more imprudent to give a prodigal son
a credit in every banker’s shop in London, than to empower a statesman
to draw bills, in this manner, upon posterity.” Hume believes “every
government” is tempted to spend on current citizens with funds extracted
from yet-born future citizens, but the temptation is greater in popular than
in autocratic states. He adopts what’s now called the “public choice” view
(see Chapter 4). Although he doesn’t ignore the benefits of public debt, he
believes they’re eclipsed by its hazards and “degeneracy.” Public securities,
40 The political economy of public debt
being safe and liquid, serve as near money, can be pledged as collateral
for private loans, and are a means to hold interest-earning capital. Since
“national debts furnish merchants with a species of money that is con-
tinually multiplying in their hands, and produces sure gain, besides the
profits of their commerce,” they “enable them to trade upon less profit,”
which “renders the commodity cheaper,” “causes a greater consumption,”
“quickens the labor of the common people,” and “helps to spread arts and
industry throughout the whole society.” Here Hume seems to be a realist.
He concedes that “more men, with large stocks and incomes, may naturally
be supposed to continue in trade, where there are public debts,” and “this
is of some advantage to commerce,” by “promoting circulation” and
“encouraging industry.” This should increase national income and lighten
public leverage, but Hume misses the implication; despite conceding that
public debt might encourage industry, he never relates debt to income. He
is a debt pessimist, not a realist.
Hume’s hostility towards financiers only intensifies his opposition to
public debt. Instead of despising investors for holding public rather than
private bonds, he despises public bonds because of his prejudice that
their holders are unproductive rentiers. For Hume these “are men who
have no connections with the state,” unlike landlords, because they are
left free to “enjoy their revenue in any part of the globe in which they
choose to reside,” and tend to “live anonymously,” and to “naturally
bury themselves in the capital or in great cities,” where they “sink into
the lethargy of a stupid and pampered luxury, without spirit, ambition,
or enjoyment.” He disdains the financier’s lifestyle as a sin against “all
ideas of nobility, gentry, and family.” He’s bothered that liquid securities
“can be transferred in an instant, and being in such a fluctuating state,
will seldom be transmitted during three generations from father to son,”
and that this form of wealth will “convey no hereditary authority or credit
to the possessor.” If so, society’s static hierarchy will erode, until “the
several ranks of men, which form a kind of independent magistracy in
a state” “are entirely lost.” In consequence, “the middle power between
king and people” ( landholders) will disappear and “a grievous despotism
must infallibly prevail.” Destitute landholders will be “unable to make any
opposition” to the growing power of the rentiers. Honest government will
be sacrificed to the financial class, with elections “swayed by bribery and
corruption alone.” Absent a c onservative hierarchy, “no expedient remains
for preventing or suppressing insurrections” or “resisting tyranny.” Hume
never proves that financial liberty breeds political tyranny, but his theme is
echoed decades later by Marx, Keynes, and Piketty.
For Hume the hazards of public debt far outweigh the benefits, yet
none of the five hazards he names can possibly diminish the level or
Classical theories of public debt 41
nineteen shillings in the pound” (90–95 percent), “for it can never bear the
whole twenty” (100 percent), and to further suppose that “all the excises
and customs to be screwed up to the utmost which the nation can bear,
without entirely losing its c ommerce and industry,” then further imagine
“all those funds are mortgaged to perpetuity,” to the point when no new
tax can serve “as the foundation of a new loan.” By such fiscally punitive
methods “the seeds of ruin are here scattered.” Blame debt, he says, not
taxes or outlays. He doubts that in Britain “any future ministry will be
possessed of such rigid and steady frugality, as to make a considerable
progress in the payment of our debts.”
Britain’s top tax rates in Hume’s time weren’t close to 60 percent,
let alone 95 percent, and only a few decades later (1798) it enacted an
income tax (discontinued in 1816), so revenue sources expanded. Defying
Hume’s skepticism, between 1750 and 1800 Britain’s debt jumped more
than five-fold, from £78 million to £427 million, but her tax revenues
increased seven-fold, from £7.4 million to £50.3 million, and the share of
public spending devoted to public debt service in 1800 was identical to the
share in 1750: 33 percent (Churchman, 2001, pp. 129–31). Hume falsely
presumed that a rising public debt necessitated rising tax rates that reached
confiscatory levels and destroyed incentives to produce, while depriving
government of the revenues needed to service debt.
Given Hume’s analytical ambiguities and dearth of statistics, he’s
reluctant to project national insolvency, although he’s certain it’ll come.
“Britain is visibly tending” toward the five “disadvantages” of public debt,
he warns, “not to mention the numberless inconveniencies, which cannot
be foreseen, and which must result from so monstrous a situation as that of
making the public the chief or sole proprietor of land” (1752 [1987], Part
II, Essay IX). Britain’s insolvency is a “not very remote” event; indeed, he
would “to assign to this event a very near period, such as half a century,”
or 1800. He notes that predecessors have wrongly forecasted national
insolvency, that he’d be more specific “had not our fathers’ prophecies of
this kind been already found fallacious, by the duration of our public credit
so much beyond all reasonable expectation.” He is “more cautious than to
assign any precise date” to a bankruptcy and is simply “pointing out the
event in general.” It’ll happen somehow, someday, but he can’t say how or
when. Eschewing any definitive metric, Hume nevertheless thinks “it may
not be difficult to guess at the consequences” of Britain’s debt, for “it must,
indeed, be one of these two events; either the nation must destroy public
credit, or public credit will destroy the nation.” For Hume “it is i mpossible
that they can both subsist, after the manner they have been hitherto
managed, in this, as well as in some other countries.” There’s an inherent
conflict between sovereign debt and political sovereignty, and since Hume
Classical theories of public debt 43
taxes that are raised upon the necessaries of life for the payment of the
interest of this debt,” which hurt the economy, but because more money
only debases money’s value and external debt causes exports of wealth, to
pay interest. Even domestically held public debt ruins the economy because
“the active and industrious subject” is taxed to pay interest to “the indolent
and idle creditor.” Last, a large public debt “weakens the internal strength
of a state, by anticipating those [tax] resources which should be reserved to
defend it in case of war.” He doesn’t believe “we owe it to ourselves.”
Hume and Blackstone are avowedly pessimistic about Britain’s debts,
but the pessimism intensifies in Malachy Postlethwayt (1707–67), who
pens Great-Britain’s True System (1757), with this subtitle: “Wherein is
Clearly Shown that an Increase of the Public Debts and Taxes Must, in a
Few Years, Prove the Ruin of the Moneyed, the Trading, and the Landed
Interests.” A young Alexander Hamilton is initially influenced by this
work, in writing his first essays in 1774–75, when he predicts a British
insolvency on the eve of war with America’s colonies, but in time he
becomes a debt realist and Postlethwayt’s work is interpreted mainly as a
warning not to accumulate excessive public debt.
What of the relation of mercantilism and public debt? Adam Smith
coined the term “mercantile system” to convey the idiosyncratic politi-
cal economy dominant in the two centuries before 1776. In contrast to a
laissez-faire approach, mercantilism commands sovereigns to intervene
to maximize net exports of goods and net imports of money (precious
metals), with the aim to enrich not merchants but the treasury. Contrary
to contemporary accounts,3 which presume mercantilism to have opti-
mistic views of public debt, in truth it has no necessary predilection to
optimism, pessimism or realism; it worries about public debt only to the
extent it entails a net outflow of cash. In wanting a perpetual trade surplus,
the mercantilist wants a perpetual capital deficit (a net inflow of foreign
capital), a condition that public debt issuance neither favors nor disfavors.
In 1767, the last of the most influential mercantilist theorists, James
Steuart (1713–80), provides a sophisticated, sanguine view of public debt,
in An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy (1767 [1966]). No
advocate of laissez-faire policy, nevertheless Steuart endorses a constitu-
tionally limited state. He rejects Hume’s claim that public debts necessarily
deduct from prosperity or that Britain courts insolvency. He also insists
sovereigns should pay their debts. As we’ll see, Steuart’s work was fol-
lowed by two optimistic accounts – by Isaac de Pinto (1774)4 and Thomas
Mortimer (1772) – but Steuart’s approach, being more contextualized, is
realistic. Mercantilism is mistaken on many principles of political economy,
but Steuart, qua mercantilist, isn’t much mistaken on public debt. Hamilton
later incorporates much of this realism in his own debt theory.
46 The political economy of public debt
Steuart (1767 [1966]) believes “the principles which influence the doctrine
of public credit are so few, and so plain,” that it’s surprising they’re so fre-
quently “plunged” into “obscurity.” For “a limited and free government”
three requisites are “essential to the firm establishment of public credit”
(p. 656). First, citizens must realize that servicing public debt requires tax
payments, hence some diminution of income; second, the state should
borrow only for the public’s (general) benefit; third, the state must earn the
confidence of creditors, by making ex ante provision for debt service and
fulfilling its promises. As a mercantilist, Steuart favors policies to ensure
ample supplies of domestic cash, so he wants Britain to have a “positive”
trade balance; he ignores the fact that when all nations adopt such policies,
interests clash and trade wars ensue. Mercantilists like Steuart fear markets
will fail to create sufficient sums of money and credit, causing higher inter-
est rates, deflation, and depression. They also mistakenly believe interest
rates equilibrate the supply and demand for money, whereas in truth they
equilibrate the supply and demand for credit (“loanable funds”). They
believe that more money lowers interest rates and that lower interest rates
are better for the economy. For Steuart, a key benefit of public bonds is
their liquidity, or near-money status; they supplement the existing money
supply, and thereby keep interest rates below where they’d otherwise be.
Public debt has many advantages, he argues, not least that it minimizes
the scope of taxation, which is favorable to production. It also augments
a nation’s “permanent income” by luring investment demand from cash
hoards. Public debt counteracts commercial stagnation by circulating
funds (via interest payments). Steuart believes problems arise only with
public debt held abroad, for then cash must be exported to pay interest; yet
public debt needn’t be a national hazard, as long as the state avoids chronic
deficit spending and adopts prudent methods (like sinking funds) of debt
service.
What of public debt holders? Unlike Hume and almost all debt theo-
rists, who see degeneracy, idleness, and corruption in financiers, Steuart
respects them and sees them as prudent and frugal, making possible invest-
ment, productivity, and prosperity, whereas prodigals consume wealth
and retard prosperity. Steuart also endorses the spirit of finance. “We
may easily conceive,” he writes, “that a moneyed interest, of a long stand-
ing, may have influence enough to produce a change upon the spirit and
manners of the people,” and in Great Britain he is pleased to see that “the
spirit of that nation is totally bent upon the support of public credit,”
because “their commercial interest depends upon it” (pp. 636–7). One
of the many “contingent consequences” of public debt is its power to
promote commerce, “to influence the spirit of the people, and make them
adopt the sentiments of the moneyed interest” (p. 639). He wants this
Classical theories of public debt 47
interest to succeed because “the prosperity of the state stands upon a pre-
carious footing” whenever “any one interest becomes too predominant.”
Fortunately, “the firm establishment of public credit” fosters “reciprocal
sentiments of good-will among the two great classes of people,” which
tends to “preserve a balance between them” (ibid.). He might have added
that sentiments of class warfare often arise from the age-old prejudice
against financers.
Like Hume, Steuart believes the state should be a nation’s sole sovereign,
and not sacrifice to any subclass of society, including public creditors;
unlike Hume, he believes sovereigns must never sacrifice or repudiate their
creditors. Steuart opposes defaults stemming not from “necessity” (when
a state is unable to repay) but from “expediency” (when a state is unwill-
ing to repay). Steuart (1767 [1966], p. 609) sees no latent conflict between
debtor and creditor; he extolls right principles to discover “the methods
for making them severally turn out to the best account not only for the
state, considered as a body politic by itself, but also for the individuals
which compose it.” He praises Britain’s handling of debt during the reign
of William III (1689–1702), because although its credit “was then in its
infancy,” it was “set upon the principle of a free and limited authority,
exercised by ministers of state, at all times responsible to Parliament at the
risk of their heads, in case of any open violation of the public faith.” The
constitutionally limited state “is the best of all securities against the bad
exercise of power” (p. 612) for “public faith stands upon the solid security
of an honest Parliament” (p. 615). In contrast, “when credit is in a languid
state, every expense of government must rise in proportion to the discredit
of the paper with which they pay” (p. 619). Despite Britain’s many wars in
the first half of the eighteenth century, and the vast rise in its public debts,
its credit remained unquestioned; it established sinking funds to protect
creditors and kept the pound as good as gold; as a result it also paid lower
interest rates (below 4 percent) than Continental sovereigns. Here Steuart
the realist brings context to public debt analysis: the extent of public credit,
pertaining to borrowing capacity. High public debts are serviceable if they
are within such capacity and well managed. “In one way or another,” he
writes, “all [public] debts contracted will disappear, either by being paid,
or by being abolished, because it is not to be expected that posterity will
groan under such a load any longer than convenient, and because in fact
we see no very old debts as yet outstanding, where interest has been regu-
larly paid out of a fund which has remained in the possession of the state”
(p. 636). If commerce remains vigorous, growth in tax revenues can keep
pace with higher debt service, and the creditworthy state can access new
loans at low rates, with proceeds used partly to repay old loans. This is a
realist position.
48 The political economy of public debt
world, is quite consistent with reason and common sense” (p. 653). In
1767 Steuart is “very far from supposing the present situation of England
to forebode the approach of any such disaster” (p. 654). Although he is a
realist, in this regard (external debt) he’s a pessimist, like so many other
classical theorists.
Steuart differs from Hume as well in opposing deliberate default: he
makes “no argument to prove that a scheme of a public bankruptcy is
either lawful, honorable, or expedient, if voluntarily gone into by a state,”
for that is “diametrically opposite to every principle of good government.”
If a government is unable to repay its debts, there’s a “proper method of
breaching faith,” and of “bringing credit decently to her grave when, after
being overstretched, it can no longer be supported” (p. 648). Sovereigns
should only default out of necessity, as a last resort, never deliberately, out
of expediency. Deliberate default harms not just creditors but also confi-
dence in sovereigns generally, which hurts many others. Creditors “would
lose all” but also “the trade of England would be undone” and “the multi-
tudes who live in consequence of the demand for their industry, from the
one and the other, would be reduced to misery.” Unlike Hume, Steuart
believes the multitude, mostly manual laborers, depend on financiers and
merchants; default harms employees because it harms their employers.
It’s naive to expect “that government shall find it expedient” to “use a
sponge for the public debts,” and “sacrifice the interest of all the creditors
in favor of the whole body,” “without hurting any interest in the state, that
of the creditors alone excepted” (p. 651). A policy of “total bankruptcy”
or an “abolition of taxes” would return Britain “to the situation it was
in before taxes and debts were known” – meaning: to a poverty-stricken
medieval era. The best way to service public debt is to make an ongoing
provision for it, by a sinking fund, or to borrow by the annuity method,
where interest and a portion of principal are repaid annually. This is
hardly an optimistic, proto-Keynesian position, as mercantilists are typi-
cally classed; it’s a realist position. Steuart specifies eight separate ways
to cut overindebtedness, what he calls “fair and honest expedients which
a state may employ to get rid of its debts, without any breach of public
faith, or without prescribing conditions of payments, which the creditors
are forced to accept against their will” (p. 663). For example, peacetime is
the best time to cut excessive debt, “a golden opportunity for diminishing
the public burden” (p. 667). For a state to accumulate debt in peacetime
is folly, and it risks a perpetual burden, since debt always rises most in
emergencies.5
Soon after Steuart’s 1767 book came one that claimed public debt
always enriches, a decidedly optimistic view. The book, by Isaac de Pinto
(1717–87), was An Essay on Circulation and Credit (1774):
50 The political economy of public debt
I say that the national debt has enriched the nation. . . At every loan the gov-
ernment of England, by granting creditors the proceeds of certain taxes which
are pledged to pay the interest, creates a new, artificial capital, which did not
exist before and now becomes permanent, fixed, and solid. This capital, by the
agency of credit, circulates to the advantage of the public as if it were an actual
sum of money by which the state has been enriched. . . [Monies borrowed in
1760] were spent in great part within the nation itself. . .[and] only the subsidies
to other [foreign] states. . .were a pure loss. . . The enormous sum which com-
poses the national debt has never existed at one time; the magic of credit and of
the circulation of money has produced this mass of wealth by successive opera-
tions with the same coins. . . Public funds are the magnets which draw money. . .
Reflect then on these principles – the nature, the essence, and the effects of
public loans where properly made and employed. You will find that they effec-
tively enrich the state and do not impoverish it, that they double the moneyed
capitals, and consequently, the power of contracting more loans.
On fiscal incidence, Smith believes tax finance and debt finance alike
are disproportionately negative for savings, capital stock, and prosperity.
Whereas taxes reduce future levels of savings, and capital, debt destroys
existing savings and capital. “When the public expense is defrayed by
[debt] funding,” Smith writes, “it is defrayed by the annual destruction
of some capital which had before existed in the country,” by diverting
outlays from productive to unproductive labor. Some savings are pre-
served when borrowing lightens present tax burdens, and with public
borrowing “the frugality and industry of private people can more easily
repair the breaches which the waste and extravagance of government
may occasionally make in the general capital of the society,” but the
borrowing nonetheless “destroys old capital” (p. 878). Eventually “the
pernicious system of funding” grows so large that taxes also must rise
substantially, to repay principal and interest; the “multiplication of
taxes” only “impairs as much the ability of private people to accumulate
even in time of peace, as the other system would in time of war.” Smith
rejects the notion that “in the payment of the interest of the public debt”
“it is the right hand which pays the left,” and that “the money does not
go out of the country,” for “it is only a part of the revenue of one set
of the inhabitants which is transferred to another,” and “the nation is
not a farthing the poorer.” This he derides as mere “apology” derived
from “the sophistry of the mercantile system,” which assumes all public
debt is held domestically (it isn’t); even were all of it domestically held
“it would not upon that account be less pernicious” (p. 879). Ongoing
diversions of wealth by “the constant practice of [a state] borrowing of
its own factors and agents, and of paying interest for the use of its own
money,” are destructive, akin to the acts of “an improvident spendthrift,
whose pressing occasions will not allow him to wait for the regular
payment of his revenue” (p. 865). Genuine prosperity requires public
frugality.
The ultimate harm of public debt, for Smith, is that it facilitates the
“transfer from the owners of those two great sources of revenue, land
and capital stock, from the persons immediately interested in the good
condition of every particular portion of land, and in the good man-
agement of every particular portion of capital stock, to another set of
persons (the creditors of the public, who have no such particular inter-
est), the greater part of the revenue arising from either.” The “long-run”
result is “the neglect of land and the waste or removal of capital stock.”
Here he echoes Hume’s denigration of the bondholder. He worries that
although the public creditor has “a general interest in the prosperity of
the agriculture, manufactures, and commerce of the country,” he has “no
interest in the good condition of any particular portion of land, or in the
56 The political economy of public debt
When national debts have once been accumulated to a certain degree, there is
scarce, I believe, a single instance of their having been fairly and completely
paid. The liberation of the public revenue, if it has ever been brought about at
all, has always been brought about by a bankruptcy; sometimes by an avowed
one, but always by a real one, though frequently by a pretended payment. The
raising of the denomination of the coin has been the most usual expedient by
which a real public bankruptcy has been disguised under the appearance of a
pretended payment. . . A national debt of about a hundred and twenty-eight
millions, nearly the capital of the funded and unfunded debt of Great Britain,
might in this manner be paid with about sixty-four millions of our present
money. It would indeed be a pretended payment only, and the creditors of the
public would really be defrauded of ten shillings in the pound of what was due
to them. The calamity too would extend much further than to the creditors of
the public, and those of every private person would suffer a proportionate loss;
and this without any advantage, but in most cases with a great additional loss,
to the creditors of the public. If the creditors of the public indeed were gener-
ally much in debt to other people, they might in some measure compensate
their loss by paying their creditors in the same coin in which the public had
paid them. But in most countries the creditors of the public are, the greater
part of them, wealthy people, who stand more in the relation of creditors
than in that of debtors towards the rest of their fellow-citizens. A pretended
payment of this kind, therefore, instead of alleviating, aggravates in most cases
the loss of the creditors of the public; and without any advantage to the public,
extends the calamity to a great number of other innocent people. (Smith, 1776
[1937], p. 883)
Early American debate on public debt was focused on the $77 million
in obligations incurred to help pay for America’s Revolutionary War
with Britain (1775–83) and animated by the distinct political economy
of Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, and of anti-Federalists, led
by Thomas Jefferson. Whereas Hamilton holds that all economic sectors
(agriculture, manufacturing, finance, and commerce) are productive and
interdependent, Jefferson, enamored by the French physiocrats, believes
that only agriculture produces a net product and that all other sectors
are parasitic on farming. Hamilton, like Steuart, views a credible public
bond as a close substitute for currency and believes it represents capital (as
savings), but denies it constitutes additional wealth, warns against its over-
accumulation, and advocates its eventual extinguishment. Overindebted
during his adult life, Jefferson declaimed against all debt, private and
public, in the latter case insisting that no generation should pass its debts
to future ones. Hamilton believes assets and debts alike can be validly and
morally bequeathed to posterity, so long as they entail a positive net worth.
Hamilton (1757–1804), the first US Treasury Secretary (1790–95) and
foremost theorist (and practitioner) of public debt in the eighteenth century,
read Postlethwayt (1757) as a youth and initially seconded his doubts
about the sustainability of Britain’s public debt:
[e]rect a mass of credit that will supply the defect of moneyed capitals and
answer all the purposes of cash, a plan which will offer adventurers immediate
advantages analogous to those they receive by employing their money in trade,
give them the greatest security the nature of the case will admit for what they
lend, and which will not only advance their own interest and secure the inde-
pendence of their country, but in its progress have the most beneficial influence
upon its future commerce and be a source of national strength and wealth.
(Syrett and Cooke, 1961–87, Vol. II)
Never did a nation unite more circumstances in its favor than we do; we have
nothing against us but our own misconduct. There are two classes of men
among us equally mistaken – one who, in spite of daily experience of accumu-
lated distress, persist in a narrow line of policy and amidst the most threatening
dangers fancy everything in perfect security; another, who judging too much
from the outside, alarmed by partial misfortunes, and the disordered state of
our finances, without estimating the real faculties of the parties, give themselves
up to an ignorant and ill-founded despondency. We want to appreciate our true
situation and that of the enemy. This would preserve us from a stupid insensibil-
ity to danger on the one hand, and inspire us with a reasonable and enlightened
confidence on the other. (Syrett and Cooke, 1961–87, Vol. II, p. 633)
Persuaded as the Secretary is that the proper funding of the present debt will
render it a national blessing, yet he is so far from acceding to the position, in
the latitude in which it is sometimes laid down, that “public debts are public
benefits,” a position inviting to prodigality, and liable to dangerous abuse,
that he ardently wishes to see it incorporated, as a fundamental maxim, in the
system of the public credit of the United States, that the creation of debt should
always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment. This he regards as
the true secret for rendering public credit immortal. [The sinking fund should be
applied to] the discharge of the public debt. . .until the whole of the debt shall
be discharged. (Hamilton, 1795, pp. 106–7)
Unlike Steuart and the mercantilists, Hamilton doesn’t see public debt
as a net addition to wealth, nor does he endorse Hume and Smith’s view
that it unavoidably destroys wealth by diverting capital to “unproductive”
uses. He’s more consistent as a realist than Steuart because he’s not a
mercantilist. The rights-respecting state isn’t unproductive but necessary:
it provides those services that are essential to wealth creation, including law
and order, security of property, contract enforcement, national defense,
and indispensable infrastructure (aka, internal improvements). As such,
a proper government may borrow in emergencies (wars) or in creating
productive infrastructure that passes to posterity.
Hamilton counteracts optimistic theories of public debt in his December
1791 report to Congress, although its main focus is “the Subject of
Manufactures” (Syrett and Cooke, 1961–87, Vol. X, pp. 277–82). “Though
a funded debt is not in the first instance an absolute increase of capital,
or an augmentation of real wealth,” he writes, “yet by serving as a new
power in the operation of industry, it has within certain bounds a tendency
to increase the wealth of the community.” Nevertheless, we must always
Classical theories of public debt 65
“estimate every object as it truly is” and “appreciate how far the good in
any measure is compensated by the ill, or the ill by the good,” for “either of
them is seldom unmixed.” This is a realist approach. Hamilton again warns
against excessive public debt:
Hamilton’s caution about public debt is now lost to the world after
decades of misrepresentation. Whereas minimal-state critics claim he’s an
apologist for public debt and denier of its allegedly latent harm, maximal-
state fans claim he’s a champion of public debt and booster of its sup-
posedly miraculous effects. In truth Hamilton acknowledges a “critical
point” when public debt becomes excessive and its servicing dependent
on a burdensome, unjust tax system that harms production. The cure is to
restrain public spending and generate surpluses sufficient to reduce debt
to manageable proportions – preferably to extinguish it. For Hamilton
public debt isn’t a prerequisite of prosperity, for extinguishing it would
end prosperity and Hamilton prizes prosperity. In his 1792 report to
Congress on means for securing the Western borders, Hamilton writes
that “nothing can more interest the national credit and prosperity than
a constant and systematic attention to husband all the means previously
possessed for extinguishing the present debt, and to avoid, as much as pos-
sible, the incurring of any new debt.” Conceding that “great emergencies
indeed might exist in which loans would be indispensable,” nevertheless,
they mustn’t be pretended emergencies. Since “taxes are never welcome to
a community,” there’s often “too strong a propensity, in the government
of nations, to anticipate and mortgage the resources of posterity, rather
than encounter the inconveniences of a present increase of taxes.” More
debt is but deferred taxes, imposed on posterity; it is policy of “the worst
66 The political economy of public debt
kind,” for “its obvious tendency is, by enhancing the permanent burdens of
the people, to produce lasting distress, and its natural issue is in National
Bankruptcy” (Syrett and Cooke, 1961–87, Vol. XI, p. 141).
Under the Federalists, US public debt had increased slightly, from
$77.2 million in 1790 to $80.8 million in 1794, but declined from 41 percent
to just 26 percent of GDP. Whereas interest expense on the debt had been
more than twice federal revenues in 1790, by 1794 it was just 64 percent
of revenues. Hamilton nevertheless wanted slower spending growth and
less public debt. Federal revenues had tripled from 1790 to 1794, totaling
$17 million in those five years, but spending grew more quickly and totaled
nearly $21 million. In 1795 Hamilton proposed “a definite plan for the
redemption of the public debt” and for “consummation of whatsoever
may remain unfinished of our system of public credit, in order to place
that credit, as far as may be practicable, on grounds which cannot be dis-
turbed, and to prevent that progressive accumulation of debt which must
ultimately endanger all government” (Hamilton, 1795, p. 345). He pleads
with Congress to maintain the sinking fund that had been established in
1792; he worries it might be raided to avoid spending cuts or tax hikes. He
reminds Congress that it’s “desirable, by all just and proper means, to effect
a reduction of the public debt, and that the application of the surplus
revenue to that object will not only contribute to this desirable end, but
will be beneficial to the creditors of the United States, by raising the price
of their securities, and be productive of considerable saving to the United
States” (p. 353). He insists that any new public debt be accompanied by
both means and measures to service and redeem it. To that end, “the
inviolable application of an adequate sinking fund is the only practicable
security against an excessive accumulation of debt, and the essential basis
of a permanent national credit” (p. 375). If the fund works as designed, US
debt can be fully repaid by 1825.
Hamilton was doubtful Congress would service US debt, let alone fully
repay it as quickly as he wished. By the mid-1790s the United States was
fiscally sound, thanks to Hamilton, but then the Congress became fiscally
lazy and insensible to what Hamilton called “the danger to every govern-
ment from the progressive accumulation of debt” which is “the natural
disease of all governments,” especially popular ones:
human nature; and happy, indeed, would be the lot of a country that should
ever want men ready to turn them to the account of their own popularity, or
to some other sinister account. Hence it is not an uncommon spectacle to see
the same men clamoring for occasions of expense, when they happen to be in
unison with the present humor of the community, whether well or ill-directed,
declaiming against a public debt, and for the reduction of it, as an abstract
thesis; yet vehement against every plan of taxation which is proposed to dis-
charge old debts, or to avoid new, by defraying the expenses of exigencies as
they emerge. . . The consequence is that the public debt swells till its magnitude
becomes enormous, and the burdens of the people gradually increase till their
weight becomes intolerable. Of such a state of things great disorders in the
whole of political economy – convulsions and revolutions of government – are
a natural offspring. (Hamilton, 1795, pp. 372–3)
It is wisdom, in every case, to cherish whatever is useful, and guard against its
abuse. It will be the truest policy of the United States to give all possible energy
to public credit, by a firm adherence to its strictest maxims, and yet to avoid
the ills of an excessive employment of it by true economy and system in the
public expenditures, by steadily cultivating peace, and by using sincere, efficient
and persevering endeavors to diminish present debts, prevent the accumulation
of new ones, and secure the discharge, within a reasonable period, of such as
it may be, at any time, a matter of necessity to contract. It will be wise to cul-
tivate and foster private credit, by an exemplary observance of the principles
of public credit, and to guard against the misuse of the former by a speedy
and vigorous administration of justice, and by taking away every temptation
to run in debt, founded in the hope of evading the just claims of creditors.
(Hamilton, 1795, p. 389)
Hamilton seeks neither to champion public debt for its own (or the
sovereign’s) sake nor declare public creditors evil precipitators of national
ruin. Despite his wariness of excessive public debt, by the time of his death
68 The political economy of public debt
in 1804 the United States still owes $82 million, slightly less than in 1795,
but only 16 percent of GDP compared to 22 percent in 1795, and interest
expense now absorbs only 36 percent of federal revenues, versus 52 percent
in 1795. In 1835, only a decade later than he predicted in 1795, US public
debt was zero.
Hamilton is a public debt realist and certainly no statist, although
in modern times he’s typically mischaracterized by Jeffersonian lib-
ertarians as a proto- Keynesian.9 Beyond misconstruing Hamilton’s
public debt theory, critics then and now also misconstrue his banking
theory. Contrary to conventional interpretation, Hamilton was no fan
of fiat paper money or central banking but instead advocated (and
implemented) specie-redeemable money and a “national” (nationwide)
bank. He recognized the value of a truly independent monetary author-
ity (the Bank of the United States, or “BUS”) modeled on the Bank of
England, which was not itself a monopolist but an issuer of gold (and
silver)-convertible currency (the pound), which otherwise left private
banks free to form and grow. Similarly, Hamilton’s BUS, approved by
Congress for a limited-life charter (1791–1811), issued a gold-convertible
currency (the dollar) that competed with other redeemable currencies
(and private banks). The BUS was formed to “promote commerce” by
furnishing “a more extensive valuable medium” in place of a depreciated
and volatile currency; public creditors would be spared public robbery.
The BUS was privately owned and operated with only 20 percent of
its capital contributed by government (in the form of existing public
bonds); BUS reserves were gold and silver (25 percent of capital) and
its leverage (liabilities as a percent of capital) was capped at 1:1. Some
BUS proponents wanted it owned and operated by government for
“public” benefit. Hamilton opposed this. Unlike today’s central banks,
the BUS wouldn’t be political, nor empowered to issue monopoly paper
money, nor permitted to monetize public debts. For enemies of the plan,
“considerations of public advantage” entailed a “wish” that the BUS be
established “on principles that would cause the profits of it to redound
to the immediate benefit of the State.” Hamilton opposed that wish. His
Report on a National Bank stressed the benefits of the BUS so long as it
wasn’t politicized:
The following are among the principal advantages of a Bank. First. The augmen-
tation of the active or productive capital of a country. Gold and Silver. . .when
deposited in Banks, to become the basis of a paper circulation. . .can
acquire. . .an active and productive quality. . . Secondly. Greater facility to the
Government in obtaining pecuniary aids, especially in sudden emergencies. . .
Thirdly. The facilitating of the payment of taxes. . . Considerations of public
advantage suggest a further wish, which is – that the bank could be established
Classical theories of public debt 69
upon principles that would cause the profits of it to redound to the immediate
benefit of the State. This is contemplated by many who speak of a national
bank, but the idea seems liable to insuperable objections. To attach full confi-
dence to an institution of this nature, it appears to be an essential ingredient in
its structure, that it shall be under a private not a public direction – under the
guidance of individual interest, not of public policy; which would be supposed
to be, and, in certain emergencies, under a feeble or too sanguine administra-
tion, would really be, liable to being too much influenced by public necessity.
The suspicion of this would, most probably, be a canker that would continually
corrode the vitals of the credit of the bank, and would be most likely to prove
fatal in those situations in which the public good would require that they should
be most sound and vigorous. It would, indeed, be little less than a miracle,
should the credit of the bank be at the disposal of the government, if, in a long
series of time, there was not experienced a calamitous abuse of it. It is true, that
it would be the real interest of the government not to abuse it; its genuine policy
to husband and cherish it with the most guarded circumspection, as an inesti-
mable treasure. But what government ever uniformly consulted its true interests
in opposition to the temptations of momentary exigencies? What nation was
ever blessed with a constant succession of upright and wise administrators?
(Hamilton, 1790b)
The question, whether one generation of men has a right to bind another [is] of
such consequences as not only to merit decision, but to place also among the
fundamental principles of every government. . . [T]hat no such obligation can
be transmitted, I think very capable of proof. I set out on this ground, which
I suppose to be self-evident, that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living;
that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by
any individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, and reverts to the
society. . . [Bequeathed estates transfer] not by natural right, but by a law of
the society [and] no man can, by natural right, oblige the lands he occupied, or
the persons who succeed him in that occupation, to the payment of debts con-
tracted by him. For if he could, he might during his own life, eat up the usufruct
of the lands for several generations to come; and then the lands would belong
to the dead, and not to the living, which is the reverse of our principle. . . [The
earth belongs to each [successive generation] during its course, fully and in its
own right. . .clear of the debts and encumbrances of [earlier generations]. . .
The conclusion then, is, that neither the representatives of a nation, nor the
whole nation itself assembled, can validly engage debts beyond what they may
pay in their own time. . . [T]he received opinion, that the public debts of one
generation devolve on the next, has been suggested by our seeing, habitually,
in private life, that he who succeeds to lands is required to pay the debts of his
predecessor; without considering that this requisition is municipal only, not
moral, flowing from the will of the society, which has found it convenient to
appropriate the lands of a decedent on the condition of a payment of his debts;
but that between society and society, or generation and generation, there is no
municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. . . On similar ground
it may be proved, that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a
perpetual law. (Jefferson, 1984, pp. 959–64)
few public bonds have maturities beyond 20 years; the average duration of
public bonds is five years, a mere fraction of any generation’s duration. No
posterity can be truly “burdened” by a five-year public debt.
Moving further from his 1788 concessions, in 1798 Jefferson informs
John Taylor that if it “were possible to obtain a single amendment to our
Constitution” he’d prohibit public debt entirely – “taking from the Federal
Government the power of borrowing” – that he’d “be willing to depend
on that [amendment] alone for the reduction of the administration of our
government.” The states but not the federal government could still borrow.
Wars too should be funded wholly by taxes: “I know that to pay all proper
expenses within the year would, in case of war, be hard on us,” he admits,
“but not so hard as ten wars instead of one. For wars could be reduced in
that proportion; besides that the State governments would be free to lend
their credit in borrowing quotas” (Jefferson, 1904, Vol. 10, p. 64). Jefferson
again wrote to Taylor on public debt in 1816, now declaring it inherently
fraudulent: “I sincerely believe. . .that the principle of spending money to
be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity
on a large scale” (ibid., Vol. 15, p. 23). A view more opposed to Hamilton’s
can’t be found.
In his first inaugural address (1801) Jefferson promises “the honest
payment of our debts” and a “sacred preservation of the public faith.” In
January 1802, a year before having the United States borrow $12 million
to pay Napoleon $15 million for the Louisiana Territory, he complains
to Du Pont de Nemours that “when this government was first estab-
lished, it was possible to have kept it going on true principles,” but that
Hamilton had “destroyed that hope in the bud,” and the United States
could now “pay off his debts in 15 years, but we can never get rid of
his financial system.” In Jefferson’s second inaugural address (1805) he
applauds budget surplus and pledges “to apply such a surplus to our
public debts” until “their final redemption” (Jefferson, 1904). During his
presidency (1801–09) the US national debt declined by nearly a third, from
$83 million (17 percent of GDP) to $57 million (9 percent of GDP). The
net debt reduction of $26 million was achieved by $41 million in budget
surpluses over eight years; spending was cut 8 percent while revenues
increased 57 percent. Yet Jefferson’s 1808 trade embargo and draconian
cuts in military spending left US revenues and national security exposed,
invited the war of 1812, and led to a sharp rise in US public debt, from
$57 million in 1808 to $127 million in 1815. The United States could repay
all debt by 1835, despite the new debt added by Jefferson and Madison
from 1801 and 1817, precisely because of the Hamiltonian fiscal archi-
tecture against which Jefferson had repeatedly railed. Although Jefferson
frequently implies that Hamilton caused the US debt, in fact it reflected
74 The political economy of public debt
and beyond – inflation, which enables implicit default. Until the 1790s
theorists assume that public debt is to be repaid in money of the same
value and legal status as when incurred (gold and silver). Britain was on
the gold standard during 1714–97 but abandoned it to fight Napoleon
and issued paper money until 1821, after which it returned to gold. The
United States was on a specie standard starting in 1792 (silver until 1834,
gold thereafter) but during its Civil War it suspended convertibility and
issued paper money (“greenbacks”) until it resumed convertibility in 1879.
Irredeemable money and its inflationary bias weren’t unknown before the
nineteenth century, but now theorists examine the interaction of money
and public debt, showing how unanticipated inflation harms creditors and
benefits debtors and how moral hazard arises if a public debtor becomes a
monopoly issuer of inconvertible money and thus is tempted to use infla-
tion to unilaterally erode excessive public leverage. These issues are even
more relevant today, as no major currency in the world has been on any
type of gold standard since 1971 (see Chapter 5, Section 5.3).
Like Hume and Smith, Jean-Baptiste Say (1767–1832), in his Treatise
on Political Economy (1803 [1821], Chapter IX) contends that whenever
government spends it is “barren consumption,” the destruction of wealth,
even while conceding it should provide national security, law courts, police
protection, infrastructure, and public schools. Do such services destroy
wealth or constitute its precondition? The latter, says Say. Yet he assumes
that since all tax revenues and borrowings derive from private income,
savings, and wealth, they detract from each. “Public credit affords such
facilities to public prodigality,” he notes, “that many political writers have
regarded it as fatal to national prosperity.” Say worries that easy access to
borrowing brings “financial exhaustion,” by making war more likely and
“making capital, which should be the fruit of industry and virtue, the prize
of ambition, pride, and wickedness” (ibid., p. 483).
Melon’s (1738) denial that public debt is ever burdensome, because we
owe it to ourselves, earns Say’s ridicule, with an echo from Smith, as Say
believes “the state is enfeebled” by debt, “inasmuch as the capital lent,”
“having been destroyed in the consumption of it by the government, can
no longer yield anybody the interest it might earn.” By Say’s reckoning,
“before the act of borrowing there will have been in existence two produc-
tive capitals, each of them yielding, or capable of yielding, a revenue,” and
“after the act of [public] borrowing, there will remain but one of these
capitals.” Public loans are a zero-sum game at best; even if they fund
productive infrastructure, those funds, had they remained in the private
sector, could have achieved the same, or more.
For Say, public borrowing supplements demand for loanable funds and
thereby raises interest rates. This is the “crowding out” argument.10 Say
Classical theories of public debt 77
contends that “national loans of every kind are attended with the universal
disadvantage of withdrawing capital from productive employment, and
diverting it into the channel of barren consumption; and in countries
where the credit of the government is at a low ebb, with the further and
particular disadvantage of raising the interest on capital.” Say can’t iden-
tify a single benefit from state loans. “Great pains have been taken to find
in the system of [public borrowing] some inherent advantage beyond that
of supplying the public consumption,” he notes, but “a close examination
will expose the hopelessness of such an attempt.” Yes, public bonds have
value, but they aren’t wealth, only a claim on future tax revenues. Yes,
public bonds can cause public creditors to want the state’s fiscal health (per
Hamilton), but that’s not a national advantage (echoing Hume and Smith).
Say doesn’t deny that the power to borrow can be a powerful weapon
in war, but also predicts that “the gross abuse” of it “will soon destroy its
efficacy.” He’s the first debt theorist to note that prices and yields on public
bonds provide an objective measure of sovereign creditworthiness, but
even a perfect record of debt service can cloak wasteful spending. For Say,
a public debt might prove a net national benefit if it provides a short-term
outlet for funds otherwise unemployed, adding that “this is perhaps the
sole benefit of public debt,” but this too is risky because “it enables a gov-
ernment to squander the national savings.” For Say, “unless the principal
be spent upon objects of permanent public benefit, as on roads, canals, or
the like,” it is better “that the capital should remain inactive or concealed,
since, if the public lost the use of it, at least it would not have to pay the
interest.” Only lenders benefit by public debt, on occasion occasionally
getting artificially higher interest rate; due to crowding out. It’s a zero-sum
game, according to Say: “the whole community is the sufferer, with the sole
exception of the capitalist.”
Oddly, Say applauds governments that demonstrate high credit, or
capacity to borrow affordably. Thus he praises a great ability to borrow, but
not the exercise of that ability. He rightly defines public credit as “the con-
fidence of individuals in the engagements of the ruling power, or govern-
ment,” and says it’s maximized only by constitutionally limited sovereigns.
Monarchs and autocrats can’t easily secure credit, for “where the public
authority is vested in a single individual, it is next to impossible that public
credit should be very extensive.” In contrast, “representative governments
will acquire a marked preponderance in the scale of national power, simply
on account of their superior financial resources” (Say 1803 [1821], p. 482).
As a pessimist, Say agrees that sinking funds can ensure responsible debt
service, but fears they can work too well by boosting borrowing capacity,
and too often they’re expediently raided. He agrees with Adam Smith:
public debt usually accumulates and courts national insolvency. England,
78 The political economy of public debt
are “equally burdensome” (p. 539). Most people feel debt finance as less
burdensome than tax finance; indeed, Ricardo thinks the bias to be so
great that he advises an all-tax policy, even in wartime. He neglects to note
that taxes also sap savings and capital, but since most income is consumed,
not saved, taxes probably inflict less harm. “This argument of charging
posterity with the interest of our debt, or of relieving them from a portion
of such interest, is often used by otherwise well-informed people, but we
confess we see no weight in it” (ibid.). Thus “war-taxes are more economi-
cal, for when they are paid, an effort is made to save to the amount of the
whole expenditure of the war, leaving the national capital undiminished,”
whereas with debt finance “an effort is only made to save to the amount of
the interest of such expenditure,” not also to repay future principal, so “the
national capital is diminished in amount” (p. 540).
We see Ricardo repeatedly deny the existence of what scholars call
“Ricardian equivalence” and, more importantly, posit what’s now called
“fiscal illusion” – citizens’ bias against paying taxes and penchant for expe-
riencing government spending as less burdensome than it really is when
more debt financed. Ricardo also believes people will save more to pay
current taxes than to service future debts, whereas “equivalence” scholars
today believe the reverse.12 Unfortunately, the vast literature on Ricardian
equivalence focuses far less on the burden of unproductive state spend-
ing – Ricardo’s main worry – and far too much on the derivative question
of whether the debt-financed portion of state spending is shouldered by
the living, by future generations, or both. One unique critique (Tabarrok,
1995) argues that even if the equivalence thesis is proved true, acceptance of
its truth will induce such profligacy that the debt won’t remain innocuous.
The most relevant but least examined aspect of Ricardo’s debt theory is
his proposal that public bonds supplant gold and sterling as backing for
Britain’s currency, in “Proposals for an Economical and Secure Currency”
(Ricardo, 1816 [1846]). Writing when Britain was off the gold standard
during the war with Napoleon, Ricardo’s plan is a precursor to the debt-
based monetary systems that came to dominate the twentieth century
and early twenty-first century. Britain issued vast sums of public debt and
irredeemable paper money while off the gold standard (1797–1821) and
accordingly suffered inflation, price volatility, booms, busts, and excessive
speculation. In this time Ricardo remained a defender of the gold standard
and critic of the Bank of England, fingering the latter as the main cause
of inflation, in his 1810 essay, “The High Price of Bullion: A Proof of the
Depreciation of Bank Notes.” Seeking a way to stabilize the pound’s value
without relying on specie convertibility, Ricardo’s bond-backed pound
scheme presaged what later became known as the “monetization” of
public debt. This “organization of debt into currency” (Carroll, 1855–79
82 The political economy of public debt
The last of the great classical political economists, John Stuart Mill
(1806–73) devotes a brief chapter to public debt in his Principles of
Political Economy (1848 [1909]). In Book V, Chapter VII (“Of a National
Debt”) he doesn’t oppose debt finance in wartime but questions “the
propriety of contracting a national debt of a permanent character,”
because funds are taken from savings and thus what might have been spent
on wages. Mill agrees with Smith, Ricardo, and Say that public debt is
broadly detrimental, but focuses on the potential harm to laborers. “The
system of public loans, in [peacetime], may be pronounced the very worst
which, in the present state of civilization, is still included in the catalogue
of financial expedients,” although not “pernicious” if the funds originate
abroad. No glut theorist, Mill nevertheless agrees with Malthus that in
some cases public loans beneficially activate idle savings, when there is an
“overflowing of the general accumulation of the world,” or when capital,
“after being saved, would have been wasted in unproductive enterprises,
or sent to seek employment in foreign countries,” or when saving “has
reduced profits either to the ultimate or to the practical minimum.” Mill
says sovereigns “may annually intercept these new accumulations, without
trenching on the employment or wages of the laboring classes,” and only
to this extent may “the [public] loan system may be carried, without being
liable to the utter and peremptory condemnation which is due to it when it
overpasses this limit.”
Mill concurs with those predecessors who assume public debt can’t accu-
mulate innocuously or infinitely. But what, precisely, is its outer limit? Here
Mill makes a novel contribution. “What is wanted,” he says, “is an index
to determine whether, in any given series of years, as during the last great
war for example [1793–1815], the limit [of public debt] has been exceeded
or not.” Fortunately, “such an index exists,” “at once a certain and an
obvious one.” Simply ask: “Did the government, by its loan operations,
augment the rate of interest?” The yield on the sovereign’s bond constitutes
Mill’s “index” of public debt capacity. If this yield remains low (that is,
the bond price remains high) and doesn’t rise amid greater borrowing, the
borrowing isn’t excessive or unsustainable. Otherwise astute, self-interested
creditors would sell public bonds, lowering their price while raising their
yield; from a truly profligate debtor they’d require a higher interest rate,
to offset default risk. “If [government] only opened a channel for capital
which would not otherwise have been accumulated, or which, if accumu-
lated, would not have been employed within the country,” Mill suggests,
its borrowing wouldn’t crowd out private borrowing or raise interest rates,
for the capital it “took and expended, could not have found employment at
the existing rate of interest.” By his reckoning, “so long as the loans do no
more than absorb this surplus, they prevent any tendency to a fall of the
Classical theories of public debt 85
Karl Marx (1818–83) offers no coherent theory of public debt, but he’s
worth examining because his perspective influences many economists to
this day, especially regarding financial crises, cronyism, financialization,
and the role of the so-called “rentier” class. Marx is also the last influential
classical economist – a true believer in the labor theory of value. To hold
that economic value is created by the quantity of labor time expended is to
deny, of course, that the quality of labor (skilled and mental) is pertinent –
to deny that scientific, engineering, and managerial intelligence make
possible the inventions, technology, machines, and intellectual property
indispensable to rising productivity and living standards. Yet Marx and his
progeny deny it all – and this affects their debt theory.
Classical theories of public debt 87
What constitutes the essence of credit?. . . First, a rich man gives credit to
a poor man whom he considers industrious and decent. This kind of credit
belongs to the romantic, sentimental part of political economy. . . The life of
the poor man and his talents and activity serve the rich man as a guarantee
of the repayment of the money lent. That means, therefore, that all the social
virtues of the poor man, the content of his vital activity, his existence itself,
represent for the rich man the reimbursement of his capital with the customary
interest. . . One ought to consider how vile it is to estimate the value of a man
in money, as happens in the credit relationship. . . Credit no longer resolves the
value of money into money but into human flesh and the human heart. Such
is the extent to which all progress and all inconsistencies within a false system
are extreme retrogression and the extreme consequence of vileness. Within the
credit system. . .the antithesis between capitalist and worker, between big and
small capitalists, becomes still greater since credit is given only to him who
already has. . . Mutual dissimulation, hypocrisy and sanctimoniousness are
carried to extreme lengths, so that on the man without credit [bears] the humili-
ating necessity of having to ask the rich man for credit. Since. . .counterfeiting
cannot be undertaken by man in any other material than his own person, he has
to make himself into counterfeit coin, obtain credit by stealth, by lying, etc.,
and this credit relationship – both on the part of the man who trusts and of the
man who needs trust – becomes an object of commerce, an object of mutual
deception and misuse. (Marx, 1844 [1975, 2010])
Public debt, for Marx, is even more nefarious. “As regards government
loans,” he writes, “the state occupies exactly the same place as the man
does in the earlier example,” but “in the game with government securi-
ties it is seen how the state has become the plaything of businessmen”
who enjoy “a concentration of wealth.” Financiers manipulate the power
of the state (their captive debtor) for selfish benefit. “The immoral vile-
ness of this morality” as well as “the sanctimoniousness and egoism of
that trust in the state become evident” (Marx, 1844 [1975, 2010]) In Das
Capital (1867 [1887], Vol. I, Part 8, Chapter XXXI) Marx contends that
“the system of public credit, i.e., of national debts” entails an “alienation
of the state – whether despotic, constitutional or republican” and “marks
with its stamp the capitalistic era.” The state is for sale – and the rich alone
are favored bidders. But the people are duped, for “the only part of the so-
called national wealth that actually enters into the collective possessions of
modern peoples is their national debt,” and “as a necessary consequence,
the modern doctrine that a nation becomes the richer the more deeply it
is in debt.” The rich own what the people owe – so the rich, in effect, own
the people. Capitalism and public debt go hand in hand. Marx prefers that
neither exist. “Public credit becomes the credo of capital,” he complains,
Classical theories of public debt 89
for “with the rise of national debt-making, want of faith in the national
debt takes the place of the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which may
not be forgiven. The public debt becomes one of the most powerful levers
of primitive accumulation.”
To Marx, public bondholders constitute a “class of lazy annuitants”
that profits “without the necessity of its exposing itself to the troubles and
risks inseparable from its employment in industry or even in usury.” By
his account “state creditors actually give nothing away, for the sum lent is
transformed into public bonds, easily negotiable, which go on function-
ing in their hands just as so much hard cash would.” Public bonds also
foster wasteful speculation and give rise “to joint-stock companies, to
dealings in negotiable effects of all kinds, and to speculation, in a word
to stock-exchange gambling and the modern bankocracy.” Worse, central
banks foster the “sudden uprising” of a “brood of bankocrats, financiers,
rentiers, brokers, and stock-jobbers.” Worse still, public debt creates “an
international credit system, which often conceals one of the sources of
primitive accumulation in this or that people.” Bondholders are, he says,
bloodsuckers. “A great deal of capital, which appears today in the United
States without any certificate of birth,” he intones, “was yesterday, in
England, the capitalized blood of children.”
As the national debt finds its support in the public revenue, which must cover
the yearly payments for interest, &c., the modern system of taxation was the
necessary complement of the system of national loans. The loans enable the
government to meet extraordinary expenses, without the tax-payers feeling it
immediately, but they necessitate, as a consequence, increased taxes. . . Modern
fiscality, whose pivot is formed by taxes on the most necessary means of sub-
sistence (thereby increasing their price), thus contains within itself the germ of
automatic progression. Over-taxation is not an incident, but rather a principle.
In Holland, therefore, where this system was first inaugurated, the great patriot,
DeWitt. . .extolled it as the best system for making the wage laborer submissive,
frugal, industrious, and overburdened with labor. The destructive influence that
it exercises on the condition of the wage laborer concerns us less however, here,
than the forcible expropriation, resulting from it, of peasants, artisans, and in a
word, all elements of the lower middle class. . . Its expropriating efficacy is still
further heightened by the system of protection. . . The great part that the public
debt, and the fiscal system corresponding with it, has played in the capitaliza-
tion of wealth and the expropriation of the masses. (Marx, 1867 [1887], Vol. I,
Part 8, Chapter XXXI)
Although the classical era is more populated with famous public debt
pessimists (Montesquieu, Hume, Smith, Blackstone, Jefferson, Say,
Ricardo, Tocqueville, J.S. Mill, Marx), it also has some less famous opti-
mists (Berkeley, De Pinto, Mortimer, Malthus), as well as some realists
(Davenant, Melon, Steuart, Hamilton, McCulloch). The classical period
isn’t a theoretically homogeneous era dominated by pessimists, as many
assume.
A less anxious attitude about public debt becomes more discernible
in the mid-nineteenth century, after prolonged reductions in UK and
US debts. As early as the 1860s, even as the US Civil War (1861–65)
brought higher new public debts, some observers mocked the classical
theorists – Hume above all – who’d most feared Britain’s debt b uild-ups.
National bankruptcies simply didn’t occur, which emboldened the debt
optimists. At the turn of the century (1900) political-economic leaders in
the United Kingdom and United States could say they’d seen high public
leverage, feared national ruin because of it, yet survived and prospered
without default. Among those who mock the pessimists, British historian
Thomas Babington Macaulay (1800–59) is the most relevant,14 for he
stresses the need for context when assessing the origin, optimality and inci-
dence of public debt (1855 [1877], Vol. VI, Chapter XIX). It’s important to
situate public debt in a nation’s character, governance, income and assets:
[British public] debt has become the greatest prodigy that ever perplexed the
sagacity of statesmen and philosophers. At every stage in the growth of that
debt the nation has set up the same cry of anguish and despair. At every stage
in the growth of that debt it has been seriously asserted by wise men that bank-
ruptcy and ruin were at hand. Yet still the debt went on growing; and still bank-
ruptcy and ruin were as remote as ever. [In 1737 public debt of only £50 million]
was considered, not merely by the rude multitude, not merely by foxhunting
squires and coffeehouse orators, but by acute and profound thinkers, as an
Classical theories of public debt 91
It is manifest that all credit depends on two things, on the power of a debtor
to pay debts, and on his inclination to pay them. The power of a society to pay
debts is proportioned to the progress which that society has made in industry, in
commerce, and in all the arts and sciences which flourish under the benignant
influence of freedom and of equal law. The inclination of a society to pay debts
is proportioned to the degree in which that society respects the obligations of
plighted faith. Of the strength which consists in the extent of territory and in
number of fighting men, a rude despot who knows no law but his own childish
fancies and headstrong passions, or a convention of socialists which proclaim
all property to be robbery, may have more than falls to the lot of the best and
wisest government. But the strength which is derived from the confidence of
capitalists such a despot, such a convention, never can possess. That strength –
and it is a strength which has decided the event of more than one conflict – flies,
92 The political economy of public debt
by the law of nature, from barbarism, and fraud, from tyranny and anarchy, to
follow civilization and virtue, liberty and order. (Ibid., p. 144)
NOTES
1. See Peacock (1959), Blewett (1981), Rowley (1987), O’Brien (2004), and Tsoulfidis
(2007).
2. Stabile (1998).
3. Buchanan (1958 [1999]) portrays the “mercantilist position” as arguing “that public debt
creation was in the social interest” (Chapter 2, Section 8.6) and was proto-Keynesian:
“A conception of public debts strikingly similar to those which are currently orthodox
was widely prevalent in the eighteenth century and before, and this was considered an
essential part of the whole mercantilist doctrine” (Chapter 2, Section 2.27). Smith (1776
[1937], Book V, Chapter III) conflates the mercantilist view with the plain fact that the
paying and receiving of interest is a wash, in aggregate (“the right hand which pays
the left”), a view he derides as a mere “apology founded altogether on the sophistry of
the mercantile system,” which is “unnecessary to say anything further about it.”
4. On De Pinto, see Cardoso et al. (2005).
5. For more on Steuart’s view of debt, see Stettner (1945).
6. For more on Smith’s view, see Nicholson (1920), Jadlow (1977), Rowley (1987), and
Tullio (1989).
7. Reinhart et al. (2015) describe “defaults on government debt” that occur “either through
outright default or high inflation,” whether modeled as “inflationary finance” (Bailey,
1956; Barro, 1983) or as a “fiscal theory of the price level” (Bajo-Rubio et al., 2009;
Eusepi and Preston, 2011). On the latter see also Cochrane (2011): “As a result of the
[US] federal government’s enormous debt and deficits, substantial inflation could break
out [if] people become convinced that our government will end up printing money to
cover intractable deficits.”
8. Hamilton (1774), accessed 29 August 2016 at http://founders.archives.gov/documents/
Hamilton/01-01-02-0054.
9. For other interpretations of Hamilton (and Jefferson) on public debt, see Taylor (1950),
Swanson (1963), Gunter (1991), Savage (1992), Swanson and Trout (1992), Gordon
(1997), Sloan (2001), Wright (2002, 2008), Wright and Cowen (2006), DiLorenzo
(2009), Devanny (2010), Sylla and Irwin (2011), McGraw (2012), and Krugman (2016).
Classical theories of public debt 93
Near the end of the nineteenth century, after decades of world peace, the
spread of industrialism, and near-universal adoption of the gold stand-
ard, public leverage ratios (public debt/GDP) were low. Classical views
of public debt remained dominant even though their pessimism hardly fit
the facts. In less than two decades public leverage again skyrocketed, amid
World War I, even as combatants raised taxes, although not enough to curb
budget deficits (or patriotism). Professor H.C. Adams (1851–1921) reflects
the prevailing view; a “progressive” who favored a greater role for the state,
his 1895 textbook on public debt conveys a concept, later dubbed “fiscal
illusion,” in which loans help obscure the full burden of government:
The most obvious, as perhaps the most serious, of the political tenden-
cies that accompany credit financiering, is found in the relation it bears to
constitutional government. Its workings in this regard may be very shortly
and very definitively stated. The funding system stands opposed to the full
realization of self-government. This is not at all difficult to understand. As
self-government was secured through a struggle for mastery over the public
purse, so must it be maintained through the exercise by the people of complete
control over the public expenditure. Money is the vital principle of the body
politic; the public treasury is the heart of the state; control over public sup-
plies means control over public affairs. Any method of procedure, therefore, by
which a public servant can veil the true meaning of his acts, or which allows
the government to enter upon any great enterprise without bringing the fact
fairly to the knowledge the public, must work against the realization of the
94
Keynesian theories of public debt 95
constitutional idea. This is exactly the state of affairs introduced by a free use
of public credit.
Under ordinary circumstances, popular attention cannot be drawn to public
acts, except [as] they touch the pocket of the voters through an increase in
taxes; and it follows that a government whose expenditures are met by resort
to loans may, for a time, administer affairs independently of those who must
finally settle the account. . . [Public debt] calls for no immediate payment from
the people, but produces vast sums for the government. It requires a certain
degree of thought to recognize that debts imply burdens, and for this reason a
government that resorts to borrowing may for a time avoid just censure. . . The
administration is satisfied, since its necessities have been relieved without excit-
ing the jealousy of the people; the lenders are satisfied, since they have secured
a good investment for their capitals and are not bothered with its management;
while the people are not dissatisfied because of their profound ignorance of
what has taken place. Herein lies the danger of permitting a government freely
to mortgage its sovereign credit. (Adams, 1895, pp. 22, 24)
chronic deficit spending and debt build-ups the failures could be fixed
and prosperity resumed. In time this was dubbed the “new economics” of
Keynesians, but more precisely it was the new Malthusianism.
The public finance norms extant in the early twentieth century were suc-
cinctly summarized in a widely used textbook, Public Finance (Bastable,
1903, p. 611): “Under normal conditions, there ought to be a balance
between these two sides [expenditure and revenue] of financial activity.
Outlay should not exceed income. . .tax revenue ought to be kept up to
the amount required to defray expenses.” “This general principle must,
however, admit of modifications. Temporary deficits and surpluses cannot
be avoided. . . All that can be claimed is a substantial approach to a balance
in the two sides of the account. The safest rule for practice is that which
lays down the expediency of estimating for a moderate surplus, by which
the possibility of a deficit will be reduced to a minimum.” Most c lassical
economists had viewed deficit spending as improper and detrimental
to savings, capital formation, and prosperity, but for progressives such
dangers occurred only amid full employment. Unemployment supposedly
reflected excessive saving and insufficient private investment, but could be
cured by dis-saving (deficit spending) and public investment. In the United
States during the 1930s, unused industrial capacity averaged 30 percent, the
jobless rate averaged 18 percent, and banks held vast excess reserves.
Keynes, we’ll see, believes that deficit spending cures depression but
otherwise isn’t warranted. Public debt should be incurred to match
public capital investment, not ordinary spending or transfers. He’s a debt
optimist, but being wary of perpetual public debt, he isn’t a full-fledged
optimist; he cares about the proper use of debt. Yet Keynes didn’t think
mass unemployment was an exception to the rule in a free economy, as did
the classical economists (who said it was curable by lower wage rates); he
believes it’s the normal case (thus his “general” theory) and advises deficit
spending to bolster private spending, “absorb” savings, boost investment,
and cut joblessness. Subsequent Keynesians push the view to its “logical”
conclusion and claim a “paradox of thrift” and “secular stagnation”
will become permanent unless there’s permanent (and limitless) deficit
spending. If unemployment is now the rule, so also should be its fiscal cure.
Buchanan and Wagner (1977 [1999]) argue that Keynes in the 1920s and
1930s overturned the “old time fiscal religion” of the Victorian era, with
its balanced budget norm, and post-war Keynesians couldn’t have become
influential without Keynes’s base:
By the 1970s “few could quarrel with the simple thesis that the effective
fiscal constitution in the US was transformed by Keynesian economics.
The old-time fiscal religion is no more” (ibid., p. 23). US public debt in
1977 was $707 billion, or just 35 percent of GDP, and only 11 percent of
US federal spending in the prior decade was borrowed. In contrast, by
the end of 2015, after a six-year revival of deficit spending (to combat
the “Great Recession” of 2007–09), US public debt totaled $19 trillion, or
105 percent of GDP, and nearly a quarter (23 percent) of total US federal
spending in the prior decade was borrowed. Thus US public leverage
(public debt/GDP) tripled from 35 percent in 1977 to 105 percent in 2015,
while the borrowed portion of public spending (in each prior decade)
doubled to 23 percent. For some, the consternation of Buchanan and
Wagner in 1977 seemed validated in 2015; but Keynesians could point to
a ten-year US bond yield that averaged only 2.1 percent in 2015, versus
7.4 percent in 1977. If US public debt was entering a danger zone, why
weren’t bond prices plunging and bond yields skyrocketing?1
Keynes’s theory of deficit spending’s power to “stimulate” an economy
without causing fiscal ruin was more influential after World War II than
previously. As deficit spending amid war coincided with a GDP boom and
less joblessness, acolytes of Keynes credited his theories, even though the
boom was in munitions and joblessness plunged due to war deaths. Post-
World War I debt theory and policy is more radical than what Keynes
prefers, but even before Keynes a relaxation of fiscal orthodoxy was
discernable:
Even before Keynes, economists had challenged the classical (and Victorian)
equivalence of public and private debt. Fallacies of aggregation antedate
Keynesians, and the argument that “we owe it to ourselves” was ushered in early
in the century. This aggregation fallacy, to the extent that it gained acceptance,
served to loosen somewhat the precepts of fiscal prudence for governments,
although the principle of budget balance kept public debt creation within
bounds of reason. . . Norms of private capital accumulation and preservation
remained pervasive, however, until Keynes and the Keynesians promulgated
the “paradox of thrift.” With this step, even the norms of private, personal
prudence came to be undermined. Spending, not saving, spilled over to benefit
98 The political economy of public debt
The radically optimistic (naive) Keynesian view of public debt did not
arise in an intellectual vacuum. A cultural ethic – which Buchanan calls
“Victorian” – had slowly eroded, and as it did there arose important pre-
cursors to Keynes, to which I now turn.
Not until World War I (1914–18) and its aftermath do we find political
economists again hotly debating (as they hadn’t for a century) whether
pessimism, optimism, or realism was warranted on public debt – for
the obvious reason that public debt once again became empirically
eye-popping. Britain’s public leverage (public debt/GDP) had declined
steadily from an all-time high of 261 percent in 1819 (a few years after the
end of the Napoleonic Wars) to just 25 percent at the outbreak of World
War I in 1914, but by the end of the war (1918) it was 115 percent, and
then climbed further, to a peak of 182 percent in 1923, before declining in
the 1930s, to 110 percent (1940). Leverage increased again due to World
War II and peaked at 238 percent in 1947. Likewise, US public leverage
had declined steadily in the five decades before World War I, from a peak
of 33 percent (in 1869) to just 3 percent in 1914; by 1918 it had returned to
33 percent and was halved to 16 percent by 1929 before doubling again to
35 percent in the 1930s. US leverage tripled to 121 amid World War II but
was still half the UK’s leverage.
The analysis of UK Cambridge professor A.C. Pigou (1877–1959) is
Keynesian theories of public debt 99
at the end of 1920 to 4.46 percent at the end of 1928. Similarly, during
World War II, public spending reached 70 percent of GDP and public
leverage peaked at 238 percent in 1947, yet the bond yield dropped from
3.35 percent in 1940 to 2.85 percent in 1947. Pigou realizes that by now it’s
become politically acceptable (and popular) for sovereigns to debt finance
instead of tax finance their outlays, but he warns that “to allow govern-
ments anxious for popularity to base their financial arrangements upon
speculations of this kind is not a little dangerous” (ibid.). Prudence, he
argues, demands a sinking fund, the classical way of sequestering current
funds to amortize distantly due bond principal.
As to the burden of public debt, Pigou acknowledges but doesn’t endorse
the “common belief that when an enterprise is financed out of taxes the
cost of it is borne by present taxpayers, but that when it is financed out of
loans, the present generation, since the lenders get value for their loans,
bears no real costs, the whole of this being borne in future years” (p. 234).
Empirically, “the British nation owes the predominant part of [the national
debt] to itself ” and thus isn’t burdened by it; only if it owes foreigners is its
position “analogous to that of an individual debtor.” Likewise, repayment
“involves no drain on the resources of the community as a whole, because,
though no part of the community transfers resources to another part, the
community as a whole pays nothing” (pp. 288–9). This is confirmed, he
says, by supposing an immediate retirement of all UK debt by a capital
levy, as Pigou (1918) once advised to retire the debt incurred in World
War I. A levy permits more saving and deprives only idle bondholders,
he insists; it harms only if it curbs investment or causes capital flight. But
“when [interest] is taken from the income of taxpayers in taxes” it “goes
into the income of holders of loan stock,” which is “a transfer of income
from one section of the community to another section, and, in so far
as taxpayers and loan holders are identical, from one pocket to another
pocket in the same coat. Plainly, in a transfer of this kind, it is impossible
that any direct objective burden. . .can be involved” (Pigou, 1956, p. 235).
Interest payments aside, what about principal, due far into the future?
Who bears its burden? Is there a corresponding benefit? If repayment is
provided by installment, as by an annual tax to fill a sinking fund (as Pigou
prefers), the debt isn’t a burden to some single, future generation but
instead to those taxed over time to fill the sinking fund. If, as Pigou also
prefers, proceeds from public loans in normal times are invested in public
assets that yield income, a benefit attaches to (and offsets) the burden;
posterity receives both a liability (debt) and an asset (suppose some worthy
infrastructure), not a negative-valued estate. “Posterity will possess the
new capital which it has been induced by the fiscal expenditures of the
state to create,” so “no cosmical catastrophe is in sight,” for “posterity
Keynesian theories of public debt 101
may be expected to reap the fruits of its investments in the same way as
its ancestors.” In sum, “the bondholder gets no benefit from repayment
[of public debt],” “while it is also true that the taxpayer suffers no loss”
(p. 236). “The payment of interest and the repayment of principal alike are
transfers, not costs, and to whatever is somewhere lost, there corresponds
elsewhere an exactly equivalent gain” (pp. 236–7). Finally, if public debt
arises from a war that preserves a nation’s liberty, independence or security,
“posterity has been protected from enslavement” (p. 234), so there’s no
injustice if posterity pays for the value bestowed by ancestors.
Pigou’s contextual approach makes him a realist on public debt – at least
in his early career; later, under the influence of Keynes, he becomes an
optimist. Writing in 1928, he’d yet to see the Great Depression and with
it a plunge in tax revenues so great that budget deficits would reach levels
heretofore reserved for wartime. Was economic depression an extraor-
dinary case justifying debt finance? If not, wouldn’t tax hikes be worse?
What policy does classical orthodoxy require? In 1928 Pigou claims to
provide “a strict rule,” but it’s ambiguous: “Prudence seems accordingly
to suggest that borrowing should hardly ever be adopted except for strictly
economic expenditure, and then only when the extension of the state
domain is clearly advisable. This strict rule points, I think, to the right
path in all ordinary circumstances” (Pigou, 1928, p. 248). By “economic
expenditure” he means not transfer spending but infrastructure spend-
ing that yields future income. In 1928 it’s unclear that he’d say a depres-
sion justifies a “clearly advisable extension of the state domain,” despite
conditions being so opposite that of “ordinary circumstances.” The strict
(classical) rule of budget balance in peacetime motivated US politicians in
1932 to raise the top federal income tax rate from 25 percent to 62 percent,
purportedly to close a budget gap (then 4.6 percent of GDP); the puni-
tive tax hikes only worsened the economy and widened the deficit (to 5.4
percent of GDP in 1934). In the last edition of Pigou’s Study in Public
Finance (1956), published two decades after Keynes’s General Theory
(1936), he portrays public debt as way to mitigate depression and preserve
jobs – a Keynesian theme. Less pronounced is his earlier (1928) preoc-
cupation with classical prescriptions for public debt; now (1956) he says
that deep depression and mass unemployment are so unprecedented as
to justify unprecedented peacetime deficit spending and a suspension of
fiscal orthodoxy. His 1956 edition adds a new condition that was absent
from his 1928 edition: “in some circumstances a case may be made out
for using budget deficits in bad times offset by surpluses in good times as
a means of steadying and improving employment” (Pigou, 1956, p. 36).
Pigou’s views in 1928 were cast by Keynes (in 1936) as representing the
classical school; by 1956 Pigou is a virtual Keynesian, at least on deficit
102 The political economy of public debt
political economy and its avid advocacy of a more expansive economic role
for government.
the remainder ($30 billion), payable mostly to the United States and
United Kingdom, should be cancelled (p. 270) out of “generosity,” or
unilaterally repudiated. Due partly to this critique, the Allies subsequently
reduced required reparations, by 16 percent in 1921 (to the equivalent of
$20 billion at the time), yet in 1923 Germany defaulted on what it still
owed, so in 1924 this too was reduced, under the Dawes Plan. In 1929 the
sum due was cut yet again, by 50 percent, under the Young Plan, to the
equivalent of $8 billion, payable through 1989. Hitler, gaining dictatorial
power in the 1930s, repudiated all sums still due. All told, Germany paid
very little in reparations in the interwar years, yet many blamed reparations
for Hitler’s rise to power.
Given the abandonment of the classical gold standard during World
War I, public debt theory in the twentieth century had to deal with the
interaction of changes in monetary values and debt burdens. Devoid of an
objective anchor, fiat money was easily manipulated and facilitated infla-
tionary finance. Keynes knows how unanticipated inflation can redistribute
wealth, as debtors gain by repaying loans in less valuable money while
creditors lose to an equivalent extent. Likewise, he knows how inflation
is an opportunistic means by which a sovereign lightens its debt burden,
especially if it also wields monopolistic control over money issuance. In The
Economic Consequences of the Peace (1920) Keynes writes of how:
price setter (business) instead of the money issuer (government). Since “not
one man in a million” can diagnose or cure inflation, “popular i ndignation”
towards rising prices, resulting from “vicious methods” of public finance,
are blamed on “profiteers” and the “entrepreneur class of capitalist,”
those that Keynes otherwise praises as “the constructive element of the
whole capitalist society” (ibid., p. 236). So why punish them? To obscure
politicians’ fiscal-monetary “misdoings” and provide them greater latitude.
“By directing hatred against [the capitalist] class,” Keynes writes, the “fatal
process” of debasing money can be intensified. “By combining a popular
hatred of the class of entrepreneurs with the blow already given to social
security by the violent and arbitrary disturbance of contract” caused by
inflation, governments make “impossible a continuance of the social and
economic order of the nineteenth century” (p. 237). Inflation is a “fraud
upon the public,” he concedes, but one that money holders discover only
when “the worthlessness of the money becomes apparent” (p. 240). Keynes
knows of inflation’s harmfulness, but doesn’t oppose it.
Aware of popular “hatred” of capitalists and entrepreneurs, and of
widespread distrust of creditors, Keynes wants public financial policies
to exploit such sentiments. “A debtor nation does not love its creditor,”
he writes (p. 278), while suggesting (much like Marx) that debtors are
effectively enslaved by creditors when debts accumulate beyond capacity
to pay. In such cases the debtor will justifiably “make constant attempts
to evade or escape payment,” which becomes a source of “friction” and
“ill-will” (ibid.). Large, intersovereign debts are especially onerous and
unjustified, Keynes says; when sovereigns owe each other, sovereignty
itself becomes a sham. On this view “the continuance on a huge scale of
indebtedness between governments has special dangers,” for they are “vast
paper entanglements” that render the international financial system “in the
highest degree artificial, misleading, and vexatious.” The global economy
“shall never be able to move again unless we can free our limbs from these
paper shackles.” At the close of World War I he calls for a cancellation
of intergovernment obligations. “A general bonfire [of public debt paper]
is so great a necessity that unless we can make of it an orderly and good-
tempered affair” it will “grow into a conflagration that may destroy much
else as well.” On internal public debt Keynes echoes Ricardo and Pigou
when he counts himself as “one of those who believe that a capital levy
for the extinction of debt is an absolute prerequisite of sound finance”
(p. 280).
In The Economic Consequences of the Peace (1920) Keynes notes
how “the inflationism of the currency systems of Europe has proceeded
to extraordinary lengths” and how “various belligerent governments,
unable, or too timid or too short-sighted to secure from loans or taxes the
Keynesian theories of public debt 107
resources they required, have printed notes for the balance” (p. 238). Soon
thereafter, emboldened by Keynes’s critique, Germany mocks reparations
demands by hyperinflating its mark (1921–24), an extreme and surrepti-
tious form of debt repudiation that Keynes applauds as an ingenious
expedient no opportunistic sovereign should eschew. In Chapter 2 of his
Tract on Monetary Reform (1923) he notes with great satisfaction how
“[Germany’s] national debt has been, by these means, practically oblit-
erated, and the bondholders have lost everything” (Keynes, 1923, p. 65).
For Keynes this is no “pernicious” policy of “injustice,” as Adam Smith
once described it, because, he believes, Germany shouldn’t have had to pay
reparations in the first place.
Keynes appears more the public debt pessimist than the optimist in
Economic Consequences of the Peace (1920) given his (subsequent) reputa-
tion for stressing debt’s power to stimulate economic activity. He defends
public debtors and disdains public creditors and he welcomes overindebted
states surreptitiously inflating away their burdens, or ending them through
confiscatory levies – in the name of “sound finance” of course. In his
Tract on Monetary Reform (1923), eyeing Germany’s hyperinflation, Keynes
reprises his view that inflation helps overleveraged states repudiate their debt:
A government can live for a long time, even the German government or the
Russian government, by printing paper money. That is to say, it can by this
means secure the command over real resources – resources just as real as those
obtained by taxation. The method is condemned, but its efficacy, up to a point,
must be admitted. A government can live by this means when it can live by no
other. It is the form of taxation which the public find hardest to evade and even
the weakest government can enforce, when it can enforce nothing else. . . The
burden of the tax is well spread, cannot be evaded, costs nothing to collect,
and falls, in a rough sort of way, in proportion to the wealth of the victim. No
wonder its superficial advantages have attracted Ministers of Finance. . . Like
other forms of taxation, these exactions, if overdone and out of p roportion
to the wealth of the community, must diminish its prosperity and lower its
standards. . . But this effect cannot interfere very much with the efficacy of
taxing by inflation. . . [T]he government can still secure for itself a large share
of the surplus of the community. (Keynes, 1923, pp. 41–3)
Inflation not only taxes cash balances but also diminishes the real value of
public debt, as creditors receive interest and a return of principal in less
valuable money:
We have seen in the preceding section the extent to which a government can
make use of currency inflation for the purpose of securing income to meet
outgoings. But there is a second way in which inflation helps a government to
make both ends meet, namely by reducing the burden of its preexisting liabilities
108 The political economy of public debt
in so far as they have been fixed in terms of money. These liabilities consist,
in the main, of the internal debt. Every step of depreciation obviously means
a reduction in the real claims of the rentes-holders against their government.
It would be too cynical to suppose that, in order to secure the advantages
discussed in this section, governments (except, possibly, the Russian govern-
ment) depreciate their currencies on purpose. As a rule they are, or consider
themselves to be, driven to it by necessities. (Keynes, 1923, p. 63)
attain even these. Experience does not show that individuals, when they make
up a social unit, are always less clear-sighted than when they act separately. . . I
suggest, therefore, that progress lies in the growth and the recognition of semi-
autonomous bodies within the State – bodies whose criterion of action within
their own field is solely the public good as they understand it, and from whose
deliberations motives of private advantage are excluded, though some place it
may still be necessary to leave, until the ambit of men’s altruism grows wider, to
the separate advantage of particular groups, classes, or faculties. . . I propose a
return, it may be said, towards medieval conceptions of separate autonomies. . .
I think that Capitalism, wisely managed, can probably be made more efficient
for attaining economic ends than any alternative system yet in sight, but that
in itself it is in many ways extremely objectionable. (Keynes, 1931 [1932],
pp. 312–14, 321)
[This] would mean the euthanasia of the rentier, and, consequently, the eutha-
nasia of the cumulative oppressive power of the capitalist to exploit the scarcity-
value of capital. Interest today rewards no genuine sacrifice, any more than
does the rent of land. The owner of capital can obtain interest because capital
is scarce. . . But whilst there may be intrinsic reasons for the scarcity of land,
there are no intrinsic reasons for the scarcity of capital. . . I see, therefore, the
rentier aspect of capitalism as a transitional phase which will disappear when it
has done its work. And with the disappearance of its rentier aspect much else in
it besides will suffer a sea-change. It will be, moreover, a great advantage of the
order of events which I am advocating, that the euthanasia of the rentier, of the
functionless investor, will be nothing sudden, merely a gradual but prolonged
continuance of what we have seen recently. . . Thus we might aim in practice. . .at
an increase in the volume of capital until it ceases to be scarce, so that the
functionless investor will no longer receive a bonus. (Keynes, 1936, p. 376)
stop “retarding for a decade the economic progress of the whole country,”
Keynes calls for vast public spending, and “even if half of it were to be
wasted, we should still be better off.” He rejects fears that “money raised
by the state for financing [such schemes] must diminish pro tanto the
supply of capital available for ordinary industry” (pp. 120–21). Contrary
to the “Treasury view,” Keynes believes that public capital spending won’t
displace productive employment of private capital; resources are already
underemployed, so slack will prevent crowding out, inflation, or a run on
the pound. The Bank of England should expand money and credit.
Keynes believes that Britain’s high jobless rate in the 1920s reflects
Treasury’s aim of reducing the high public debt and high interest rates that
are left over from World War I. “The less the government borrows, the
better [Treasury argues] are the chances of converting the national debt into
loans carrying a lower rate of interest,” but in doing this, Treasury officials
only “barred the door” to recovery (p. 129). Just before Britain defaults on
the gold standard in September 1931 Keynes denounces Treasury’s plan to
narrow the budget deficit by spending cuts and tax hikes; it is “the crude
idea that there is a fixed loan fund, the whole of which is always lent, so
that, if the government borrows less, private enterprise necessarily borrows
more.”
Keynes rejects the notion of “crowding out” when saving is excessive.
Treasury’s orthodox policy, he believes, will increase joblessness; it should
simply deficit spend. “The immediate consequences of the government
reducing its deficit are the exact inverse of the consequences of its financ-
ing additional capital works out of loans.” Treasury must reject the notion
that deficit spending is artificial, unsustainable, or harmful. “At the present
time all governments have large deficits,” but it is “nature’s remedy, so to
speak, for preventing business losses from being, in so severe a slump as the
present one, so great as to bring production altogether to a standstill.” For
Keynes, it is “much better in every way that the [state’s] borrowing should
be for the purpose of financing capital works, if these works are of any use
at all, than for the purpose of paying doles,” that is, for direct relief of the
unemployed (Keynes, 1931 [1932], pp. 158, 159, 161).
Keynes further advances his case for peacetime deficit spending in a
1933 pamphlet, The Means to Prosperity. He advises the British govern-
ment to make an extra £3 million “loan-expenditure” (his expression for
“deficit spending”), which was then less than 1 percent of total govern-
ment spending of £1.3 billion, when roughly one million were unemployed.
Keynes assumes a modest spending multiplier (1.5). Trying to balance a
budget by tax hikes, as the United States tried in 1932, would make things
worse: “Taxation may be so high as to defeat its object,” he writes; indeed,
“given sufficient time to gather the fruits, a reduction of taxation will run
114 The political economy of public debt
If these conclusions cannot be refuted, is it not advisable to act upon them? The
contrary policy of endeavoring to balance the budget by impositions, restric-
tions, and precautions will surely fail, because it must have the effect of dimin-
ishing the national spending power, and hence the national income. . . Some
cynics, who have followed the argument thus far, conclude that nothing except
a war can bring a major slump to its conclusion. For hitherto war has been the
only object of governmental loan-expenditure on a large scale which govern-
ments have considered respectable. In all the issues of peace they are timid,
over-cautious, half-hearted, without perseverance or determination, thinking of
a loan as a liability and not as a link in the transformation of the community’s
surplus resources, which will otherwise be wasted, into useful capital assets. I
hope that our Government will show that this country can be energetic even in
the tasks of peace. (Keynes, 1933b, pp. 16, 22)
The public authority must be called in aid to create additional current incomes
through the expenditure of borrowed or printed money. . . As the prime mover
in the first stage of the technique of recovery I lay overwhelming emphasis on the
increase of national purchasing power resulting from governmental expenditure
which is financed by Loans and not by taxing present incomes. Nothing else
counts in comparison with this. . . [I]n a slump governmental Loan-expenditure
is the only sure means of securing quickly a rising output at rising prices. . . In
the past orthodox finance has regarded a war as the only legitimate excuse for
creating employment by governmental expenditure. You, Mr. President, having
cast off such fetters, are free to engage in the interests of peace and prosperity
the technique which hitherto has only been allowed to serve the purposes of
war and destruction. The set-back which American recovery experienced this
autumn was the predictable consequence of the failure of your administration
to organize any material increase in new Loan-expenditure during your first six
months of office. (Keynes, 1933c)
balancers oppose it, and unfortunately, “wars have been the only form of
large-scale loan- expenditure which statesmen have thought justifiable”
(pp. 129–30). Another passage in the General Theory leaves Keynes
exposed to the charge that he sees deficit spending as a magical cure-all. He
notes that “loan-expenditures” encompass two types of spending – “public
investment” (spending on infrastructure, which he describes as only “partly
wasteful”) and “current public expenditure” (spending on jobless subsidies
and income transfers, which he describes as “wholly wasteful”). Although
“loan-expenditure” is a “convenient expression for the net borrowings
of public authorities,” strictly speaking the latter should be reckoned as
negative saving,” for whereas “one form of loan-expenditure operates by
increasing investment,” the other operates “by increasing the propensity
to consume” (p. 129). Here Keynes makes deficit spending appear as a
cure-all – precisely because it is “wasteful” (that is, a welcome dissipater of
supposed wealth “gluts”).
Recall that for Keynes, depression and “involuntary unemployment”
occur when an economy’s aggregate supply exceeds its aggregate demand
and savings exceed investment (a brazen denial of Say’s Law). Neither the
labor market nor capital market clear, in the first case because wage rates
don’t decline enough, in the second because interest rates don’t decline
enough. At root, the relative deficiency of aggregate demand reflects a
relative deficiency of investment. But Keynes claims to identify two poli-
cies to achieve the balance n ecessary for full employment: (1) boost invest-
ment, so it’s no longer deficient, by deficit spending on public investment
(capital goods) and (2) reduce saving, so it’s no longer superfluous, also
by deficit spending, but solely for the benefit of those with a greater pro-
pensity to consume than to save (ideally, recipients of jobless subsidies).
Deficit spending becomes a u niversal cure-all policy, not just for some
aspects of what ails a depressed economy but for all aspects, so it’s sure
to be deployed both extensively and perpetually, especially if most econo-
mists designate “full employment” a rarity.
The last bit of evidence bearing directly on Keynes’s view of deficit
spending and public debt comes from his insistence that public outlays
be partitioned into ordinary spending and capital spending, as is done in
private business accounting. Ideally, he says, ordinary spending is fully
funded by tax revenues, with no deficit, but capital outlays are borrowed,
because the assets created yield longer-term benefits to future genera-
tions. According to Bateman (2005), Keynes doesn’t make this distinction
to rationalize unlimited deficit spending; he first defends the distinction
in 1924, and last wrote about it in 1944, in the British White Paper on
Employment Policy. He insisted that “the ordinary Budget should be
balanced at all times” and opposed “confusing the fundamental idea
Keynesian theories of public debt 117
(in 1920) for Germany in the post-war debate about reparations, but
ideological compatibility also proved relevant. In his specially prepared
introduction to the 1936 German-language edition of his General Theory
Keynes declared that “the theory of output as a whole, which the following
book purports to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions
of a totalitarian state, than is the theory of production and distribution of
a given output produced under the conditions of free competition and a
large measure of laissez-faire.”3 Neither the rise of Hitler, Mussolini, and
Stalin nor the expansion of the welfare, warfare, regulatory states in the
United States and Britain in the 1930s and 1940s dimmed Keynes’s passion
for central planning, the socialization of investment, and deficit spending;
in his view a benign “middle course” between capitalism and socialism
was needed to prevent collapse of the former and forestall adoption of the
latter. State intervention wouldn’t necessarily proliferate beyond all reason,
although that was precisely the theme of Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to
Serfdom (1944). After reading it, Keynes wrote to Hayek that while “it is a
grand book,” “I should say that what we want is not no planning, or even
less planning; indeed, I should say that we almost certainly want more,”
and “what we need” “is not a change in our economic programs” but “an
enlargement of them.”4
Keynes might have described classical economists as wanting to “balance
the budget, the economy be damned,” while he wanted to “balance
the economy, the budget be damned,” but in truth he never counse-
led unmitigated deficit spending. Distinguishing ordinary from capital
budgeting, he tried to synthesize old (classical) and new (his) notions of
fiscal integrity. It was still possible, in summing two sub-budgets, to get
aggregate deficit spending amid recessions. Public capital projects would
yield a return, said Keynes, but outlays were to be for the “public good,”
not private interest or the profit motive, so public project returns would
rarely prove high enough to satisfy a net benefit test, or exceed the cost
of capital, as required in purely private projects. For Keynes this differ-
ence was precisely the advantage of public projects: with inherently lower
hurdle rates, investment (hence the economy) could be made less volatile.
To achieve long-term economic stability and prevent structural, involun-
tary unemployment, Keynes estimated that the greater part (66–75 percent)
of total capital (not ordinary) spending should be state controlled, com-
prising as much as 20 percent of GDP: “If two-thirds or three-quarters of
total investment is carried out or can be influenced by public or semi-public
bodies, a long-term program of a stable character should be capable of
reducing the potential range of fluctuations to much narrower limits than
formerly, when a smaller volume of investment was under public control,
and when even this part tended to follow, rather than correct, fluctuations
120 The political economy of public debt
There is nothing new about deficits for government units in time of depression.
In such periods it is to be expected that government receipts will decline, while
expenditures fail to decline proportionately, or even increase. There is, however,
a difference between a fiscal policy designed simply to alleviate the distress
accompanying a severe depression and a fiscal policy designed to produce
recovery though a deliberate unbalancing of the budget. The former policy is
Keynesian theories of public debt 121
based on the assumption that the deficit is the lesser of two evils; the latter, on
the assumption that deficit financing in such a period is a positive good. It is the
latter policy which has been followed since 1933. The new aspects of our recent
deficits have been their extraordinary size, for peacetime, and the complacency
with which they have been incurred. They have been viewed as a necessary and
important means of promoting recovery itself. (Haley, 1941, p. 67)
We’ve seen how Keynes is sanguine about deficit spending and the
capacity of nations to safely implement the policy, even in peacetime; on
that basis he’s a public debt optimist. Yet many passages in his work try to
delimit the extent and magnitude of deficit spending; on that basis he’s a
public debt realist. It isn’t easy to discern whether these passages reflect his
real views or instead a cynical effort to assuage the suspicions of stubborn
budget balancers at the UK Treasury. Regardless, Buchanan and Wagner
(1977 [1999]) classify Keynes as a proponent of “continuing and increasing
budget deficits.” This may be too harsh. Even Buchanan and Wagner don’t
contend that Keynes is solely responsible for the sea-change in professional
and political attitudes about public deficits and debt in the early twentieth
century. “There was no full-blown Keynesian ‘revolution’ in the 1930s,”
they write, for “American acceptance of Keynesian ideas proceeded step
by step from the Harvard economists, to economists in general, to the
journalists, and finally, to the politicians in power. This gradual spread of
Keynesian notions” not coincidentally, accompanied “the demise of the
old-fashioned principles of fiscal responsibility” (p. 6). Thus there’s a ques-
tion whether the shift in thinking and practice on deficits and debts – for
example, whether they should be temporary and rare or long-lasting and
typical – was a consistent extension of Keynes’s views, or a departure from
them. In his 1954 text, Principles of Public Finance, the pro-Keynesian
and one-time British finance official, Hugh Dalton claims to find a radical
break and attributes it mainly to Keynes:
The new approach to budgetary policy owes more to Keynes than to any other
man. Thus it is just that we should speak of the “Keynesian revolution.”. . .
We may now free ourselves from the old and narrow conception of balancing
the budget, no matter over what period, and move towards the new and wider
conception of balancing the whole economy. (Dalton, 1954, p. 223)
Keynes was opposed to large structural deficits. He thought that they chilled
rather than stimulated the economy. . . Keynes understood what the [Obama]
administration doesn’t understand – that the proper policy in a democracy
recognizes that today’s increase in debt must be paid in the future. We paid
down wartime deficits. Now we have continuous deficits. We used to have a
rule people believed in: balanced budgets. And now that’s gone. . . Keynes
wanted deficits to be cyclical and temporary. He wouldn’t have been in favor
of efforts to raise tax rates in a recession to eliminate deficits. He viewed that
as suicidal. He was opposed to the idea that governments should balance the
budget during a downturn, and advocated running short-term deficits to spur
the economy. The type of stimulus he advocated was very specific. He said it
should be geared towards increasing private investment. He viewed private
investment, as opposed to big government spending, as the source of durable
job creation. He also said that the deficits should be self-liquidating, so that the
increased economic activity caused by the stimulus inevitably generated a com-
bination of extra tax revenues and lower unemployment payments. With higher
revenues and lower outlays, the deficit would disappear. . . Keynes wanted to
increase employment by smoothing the amount of investment through the up
and down parts of the business cycle. He knew that recessions cause a decline
in investment, and that the fall in investment caused unemployment to rise. So
he wanted the government to stabilize investment through a recession. . . He
believed that the government should plan and direct investment, but not nation-
alize it. . . He said [budget] deficits should be temporary and self-liquidating.
He clearly did not advocate long-term spending in excess of revenues, since that
causes structural deficits. (Meltzer, 2010)
Meltzer’s account is more consistent with what Keynes actually said and
wrote about public deficits and debts than is Dalton’s account; this is ironic,
because monetarists (like Meltzer) typically are more critical of Keynes’s
ideas and policies, while Keynesians (such as Dalton) typically are his
biggest defenders. Traditionally, monetarists have critiqued the Keynesian
Keynesian theories of public debt 123
system on the grounds that it overstresses the power of fiscal policy rela-
tive to monetary policy; but having assessed Keynes’s views on money and
its power, when depreciated, to reduce the public debt burden, we find
a system that makes monetary policy a very powerful and indispensable
adjunct to fiscal policy. Meltzer’s critique pertains less to Keynes and more
to the Keynesians succeeding him; he thinks they’ve misinterpreted and
misused Keynes’s theories, at least on the issue of government deficits and
debts. It’s to these Keynesians that I turn next.
if so, the cure must also be extended. If deficit spending can boost invest-
ment in the short-term, it can also do so in the long-term. In the late 1930s
Hansen also advances a thesis of “secular stagnation,” or “economic
maturity” (Hansen, 1939). Observing a prolonged slowing of growth and
persistently high joblessness in the 1930s, he worries it’ll last indefinitely.
Long- term (secular) stagnation he believes reflects inherent “limits to
growth” due to a diminution in the prerequisites of growth: the American
frontier, population growth, and technological innovation. For Hansen
there’s not just an occasional cyclical, temporary deficiency of private
investment opportunities but a chronic, permanent deficiency also. In one
sense his “secular stagnation” thesis elaborates Keynes’s notion of an under-
employment equilibrium, adapted to a long-term context. But it’s impor-
tant because it advances an influential case Keynes didn’t make: a case for
perpetual deficit spending and even an ever-rising public debt/GDP ratio.
Recall Keynes’s cure for a cyclical shortfall of investment relative to savings:
deficit spending on public capital goods. Hansen believes the cure, though
valid, should be extended to combat the persistent stagnation he claims to
observe in the late 1930s; if adopted, the policy would boost total public
debt but also steadily raise its proportion to GDP, since secular stagnation
means slow or non-existent growth in GDP (the denominator of the ratio).
Hansen’s stagnation thesis lost influence in the 1940s but was revived in the
1970s and has gained new adherents among today’s prominent Keynesians
(Summers, 2014). Hansen held fast to his pessimistic thesis until at least
1954. “The dogma of the balanced budget may well become a serious
obstacle to maximum production, employment and purchasing power in
the US,” he wrote at the time. “Yet it is by now generally agreed that the
present public debt, considering the manner in which it is held (combined
with the current relatively favorable distribution of the tax burden), is an
important element of strength in the community,” and it is crucial, for “full
employment in the US is not likely to be maintained, either in the cyclical
short run or the long run, unless the massive fiscal powers of the federal
government are employed to ensure adequate aggregate demand,” “not
merely as an anti-cyclical device, but also as a necessary means to achieve
our long-run growth potential” (Hansen, 1954, pp. 412–13).
In the late 1930s Hansen’s fear of secular stagnation was corroborated
by New Deal reformers seeking to excuse their policy failures. Despite a
cascade of deficit spending from 1931 to 1937, when 45 percent of all US
federal spending was borrowed and the national debt had doubled, by
mid-1938 the US jobless rate was still 21 percent, up from 14 percent a year
earlier, and industrial output was down 31 percent (over the same period
year). Meanwhile, socialist and fascist ideologies were ascendant; many
economists believed capitalism was “finally” collapsing, as Marx had first
126 The political economy of public debt
in the sense that the rate of savings itself was excessive. Thus, what we should
worry about is not the increase in the debt but the increase in savings beyond
the amount that can be absorbed by investment. It is ridiculous to maintain
that debt in general must be repaid. The mere attempt to repay debts all around
would involve a liquidation of assets which would result in complete economic
paralysis. (Gilbert et al., 1938, pp. 62–3)
The authors try to dispel prevailing popular notions, including that public
outlays are a “waste of resources,” that public debt is “unproductive,” that
it “imposes a weight of interest charges” that “must eventually become
intolerable,” or that public credit “is a delicate thing” that “might easily be
overstrained by a long-continued increase in the public debt,” and so “must
inevitably lead to disastrous inflation.”
Alvin Hansen’s most extensive essay on deficit spending and the national
debt – “The Growth and Role of Public Credit” – is a chapter in his 1941
book on fiscal policy, which appeared on the eve of the US entry into
World War II (Hansen, 1941), a war that eventually caused the highest
ratio of public debt/GDP in US history (before or since): 125 percent,
in 1946 (see Chapter 1, Figure 1.4 in this volume). Here Hansen openly
mocks “opposition to public debt” and equates it to “the medieval opposi-
tion to interest” (p. 135). He tries to show how the long-term trend of debt
issuance has been upward, to imply it’s normal and harmless. Yet his data
show public debts leveling out before declining during the century from the
end of the Napoleonic Wars (1815) to the outbreak of World War I (1914).
Not coincidentally it was also one of the least democratic, freest, most
peaceful, and prosperous centuries in history. Hansen doesn’t relate public
debt to public spending, taxable capacity, or GDP, although he concedes
that in both 1818 and 1923 Britain’s national debt was twice its national
income (p. 136). He hopes to imply that high public leverage isn’t neces-
sarily unsustainable. In fact, recent estimates suggest that Britain’s public
debt/GDP ratio peaked at 2.6x in 1821 and 1.8x in 1923, compared to
Hansen’s estimate of 2.0x (obtained from the report of a British debt com-
mission in 1927); when Hansen wrote in 1941 Britain’s debt ratio was only
1.1x, but it rose again during World War II, and peaked at 2.4x in 1947,
before gradually declining to 1.1x by 1959. Noting that public debt in the
nineteenth century grew rapidly only in wartime, Hansen argues that in the
twentieth century it can also increase dramatically amid economic contrac-
tions, falling tax revenues, and rising relief payments; but this latter trend
is no bad thing, for absent deficit spending (“fiscal stabilizers”), contrac-
tions would worsen. We should be happy that “the sphere of public finance
has been enormously broadened, owing to the political necessity imposed
upon modern communities to pursue an active policy with respect to the
fundamental problem of unemployment” (p. 138). High joblessness is not
128 The political economy of public debt
Account must be taken of rates of change and the magnitude of the public
debt in relation to other magnitudes, especially the ratio of debt to national
income” (p. 174). Here the optimist sounds a note of realism, using the
context embedded in public leverage (public debt/GDP); but again he
offers no metric to gauge its outer limits. “With respect to proportionality”
he’s worried only that high and rising public leverage “may imply a dis-
proportionate amount of wealth invested in government bonds and held
by wealthy classes,” which he finds problematic only because “the rentier
class might accordingly become too large at the expense of the active
elements of the country.” For Hansen the dastardly “rentier class” (of
bondholders) isn’t an “active” (productive) element in society but one that
operates “at the expense” of the active element (workers). He fears that
rentiers will oversave, become too important, and breed unemployment; he
neglects to note that his cure for unemployment is still more public debt,
which only supplements rentier income. Socialists cite the contradiction
in saying that Keynesianism is self-defeating (Braverman, 1956). Hansen
joins a conga line of contradictory theorists who advise ever-more debt
issuance while deriding debt-holders as idle parasites to be expropriated by
overleveraged states. Piketty (2014) agrees, but unlike Hansen wants public
debt eradicated by a large tax on debt-holders. In short, don’t pay them,
rob them – a tactic consistent with socialist preferences.
Hansen’s dilemma – issuing ever more public debt yielding “unearned”
income to despised rentiers – explains his case for “controlled borrowing,”
whereby increasingly leveraged states try to minimize their interest expense
by capping interest rates (Hansen, 1941, pp. 175–85). Hansen laments that
explicit money printing, or “crude greenback-ism,” is “no longer seri-
ously proposed.” Yet by “modern greenback-ism” central banks should
monetize public debt and induce private banks to do so too. Central bank
independence is outmoded, he contends. The Federal Reserve “might be
required by law, at the request of the Treasury, to make interest-free loans
to the government” (p. 176). For Hansen “there is a legitimate place for
loan financing within appropriate limits on a continual basis” (p. 184) and
“the attack on chronic unemployment by means of public expenditures
financed by a continually rising public debt is essentially a conserva-
tive proposal” (p. 181). He is an early proponent of what is later called
“financial repression” (see Chapter 5, Section 5.6 in this volume).
Hansen’s account of public debt capacity becomes more expansive
when the United States enters World War II in late 1941 and public lever-
age begins exceeding levels from the 1930s. He had rejected the analogy
between private and public debts as well as the notion of a national
“balance sheet” to include public assets in analyses of national solvency.
He had also rejected the idea of a limit to public leverage, noting that
Keynesian theories of public debt 131
Britain’s public debt was secure even when public leverage reached 200
percent in 1818 and 1923 (Hansen, 1941, p. 136). But now, in 1940, a fourth
of all US outlays are borrowed and US public leverage reaches 42 percent,
versus 17 percent in 1930. By 1942 US spending has quadrupled and
56 percent of it is borrowed, as public leverage reaches 45 percent, on its
way to a peak of 121 percent by war’s end in 1946. Writing to businessmen
and financial executives through Fortune magazine in 1942, Hansen now
references the private-public analogy and insists that US public leverage
can safely skyrocket from 45 percent to “well beyond” 200 percent:
Public debt might be likened to the capital account of a corporation, made up,
say, of long-term mortgage bonds and of one or more classes of stock. Such
liabilities, it is important to remember, are offset by assets on the other side
of the balance sheet. So long as these are of a character to produce sufficient
earnings to meet the capital charges, including dividends on the stock, nobody
would ever think of the corporation as being overcapitalized. The essential
element determining the soundness of the concern is the ratio of its earning
power to its capital account [and] precisely the same principle holds with respect
to the public debt of a nation, of which the source of earning is usually taxation.
If the power to raise revenue is in manageable ratio to the capital charges (debt
service), it is proper to say that the nation is not, so to speak, over-capitalized. . .
There is little reason to fear that, with the sort of fiscal management we shall
have a right to expect, the debt could not safely go well beyond double the
national income if necessary. Certainly we have no occasion to think of the
debt limit as being like the edge of a precipice from which we must always stay
carefully away. (Cited in Moulton, 1943, pp. 56 and 68)
voters experiencing “debt illusion” avoid fiscal pain but inflict it unfairly
on posterity. Hansen (1959) rejects these arguments. He dismisses Meade’s
complaint that economists only stress how public leverage can rise safely
to levels above those seen previously, but disparage its power to depress the
national income upon which debt service depends. Hansen (1959) concedes
that public debt can be a real burden and notes how Lerner (1948) admitted
that “too large a [public] debt can be a serious matter.” Hansen says “the
earlier literature” was “designed to minimize fears of the public debt,” yet
it didn’t “neglect consideration of adverse effects.” Hansen and Lerner
alike believe a fast-rising public debt can be a deadweight and trench on
savings, but that it’s warranted amid a savings “glut.” Hansen says Meade
forgets that deficit spending serves as an “automatic stabilizer” to curb
cyclicality. “I regard this aspect of public debt as highly important,” he
writes; with mass unemployment, deficit spending “becomes a powerful
built-in stabilizer,” “a kind of national insurance system to which we all
contribute as taxpayers, and from which we all receive the benefit of insur-
ance against instability” (Hansen, 1959, p. 372). He says that higher interest
outlays on public debt amid recessions boost demand and help end reces-
sions, but worries that with higher public leverage such outlays might dis-
place “much needed social welfare expenditures.” As a Keynesian he fears
“excessive” savings, and thus also that any “diversion of a large part of the
income stream into interest payments on government bonds would tend
to raise the propensity to save, thus intensifying the savings-investment
problem” (Hansen, 1941, pp. 174–5). He’s happy that sovereign loans help
absorb “excess” savings. He’s also pleased about higher inflation, which
averages nearly 4 percent per annum from 1946 to 1958, because it “has
already removed in the last twelve years well over a third of the US debt
burden, so-called” (Hansen, 1959, p. 375). He is a fan of implicit public
debt default by inflation.
Hansen next dismisses Buchanan’s argument (pp. 377–8) that “public
and private debts are basically alike.” This ignores, he says, the fact that
“the national government has the power. . .to issue money. . .and tax all
of its citizens” and how, “as a borrower, this puts the national government
in a class by itself.” Moreover, “an increase in public debt increases the
property holdings of the country – the wealth effect,” whereas “increases
in private debt can have no such effect” (ibid.). Buchanan may oppose the
extent to which states now operate, but can’t deny that they can do so; nor
can he claim that public financial powers are somehow wielded by private
debtors. Hansen’s critique is valid. No clear analogy can be made from
private to public debtors, no strong claim that excess public debt must
make a state submit itself to bankruptcy, no denial that public debts, unlike
private estates, can be bequeathed to posterity without matching assets
Keynesian theories of public debt 133
(a negative net worth). Surely future generations benefit from prior public
spending funded by the public debt they’ll be servicing – including wartime
outlays, to the extent that posterity is thereby ensured political-economic
freedom – and including debt-financed productive infrastructure. What
should matter most, says Hansen, is the real (not merely financial) impact
of public debt on present and future generations alike. “On balance is the
future generation better or worse off by reason of the [public] debt?” he
asks. “Probably no unequivocal answer can be given.”
Hansen’s main contribution to Keynesian debt theory is his argument
that deficit spending should occur (that is, should rise, unobjectionably)
not only in the short- term as an automatic stabilizer of aggregate
demand but also over the long- term, if necessary, perpetually, to
combat “secular stagnation.” Keynes rejects the classical rule that
deficit spending might be justified in wartime but not in peacetime; he
repudiates the classical school’s denial of an involuntary unemployment
equilibrium, but agrees that deficit spending shouldn’t become chronic
(resorted to in good times as well as bad) and public debt should build
up for public investment projects, not social transfers. Hansen goes
further: large public debts are justified even amid rising public leverage,
even if they are used for transfers, and even if they become perpetual –
anything necessary to prevent structural, secular stagnation. His basic
extension implies others, too, of a kind Keynes doesn’t address: a
nation’s taxable and debt capacities. Hansen shares Keynes’s optimism:
public debt isn’t dangerous or burdensome and it can even cure reces-
sions. If it ever becomes problematic it can be mitigated or repudiated,
whether explicitly (default) or implicitly (inflation), without harming
national solvency or sovereignty, because the harm is inflicted only on
“non-productive” rentiers.
Unlike Keynes and Hansen, Abba Lerner (1903–82) makes an overt, una-
bashed case for unrestrained deficit spending, public debt issuance, and
inflationary finance, by a rubric he calls “functional finance.” “In brief,” he
explains, “Functional Finance rejects completely the traditional doctrines
of ‘sound finance’ and the principle of trying to balance the budget over a
solar year or any other arbitrary period.” Even the “instinctive revulsion
that we have to the idea of printing money, and the tendency to identify
it with inflation, can be overcome” (Lerner, 1943, p. 41). In Lernerian
finance, anything goes.
134 The political economy of public debt
The central idea [of Functional Finance] is that government fiscal policy, its
spending and taxing, its borrowing and repayment of loans, its issue of new
money and its withdrawal of money, shall all be undertaken with an eye only
to the results of these actions on the economy and not to any established tra-
ditional doctrine about what is sound and what is unsound. This principle of
judging only by effects has been applied in many other fields of human activ-
ity, where it is known as the method of science opposed to scholasticism. The
principle of judging fiscal measures by the way they work or function in the
economy we may call Functional Finance. The first financial responsibility of
the government (since nobody else can undertake that responsibility) is to keep
the total rate of spending in the country on goods and services neither greater
or less than that rate which at the current prices would buy all the goods that it
is possible to produce. If total spending is allowed to go above this there will be
inflation, and if it is allowed to go below it there will be unemployment. . . The
second law of Functional Finance is that the government should borrow money
only if it is desirable that the public should have less money and more govern-
ment bonds [and] conversely, the government should lend money (or repay some
of its debt) only if it is desirable to increase the money or to reduce the quantity
of government bonds in the hands of the public [in each case, as a means of
optimizing interest rates]. (Lerner, 1943, pp. 39–40)
As to public debt, Lerner echoes his optimistic predecessors: it’s not akin
to private debt, it’s safe if internally held, and it doesn’t burden even future
generations:
By far the most common concern about the national debt comes from consider-
ing it as exactly the same kind of thing as a private debt which one individual
owes to others. . . The simple transferability of this rule to national debt is denied
by nearly all economists. . . One of the most effective ways of clearing up this
most serious of all semantic confusions is to point out that private debt differs
from national debt in being external. It is owed by one person to others. That is
what makes it burdensome. Because it is interpersonal the proper analogy is not
to national debt but to international debt. . . But this does not hold for national
debt which is owed by the nation to citizens of the same nation. There is no
external creditor. “We owe it to ourselves.”. . . A variant of the false analogy is
the declaration that national debt puts an unfair burden on our children, who
are thereby made to pay for our extravagances. Very few economists need to be
reminded that if our children or grandchildren repay some of the national debt
these payments will be made to our children and grandchildren and to nobody
else. (Lerner, 1948, pp. 255–6)
[If] the result [of Functional Finance is] a continually increasing national
debt. . .[at] this point two things should be made clear: first, that the pos-
sibility [presents] no danger to society, no matter what imagined heights the
national debt might reach, so long as Functional Finance maintains the proper
level of total demand for current output; and second (though this is much less
important), that there is an automatic tendency for the budget to be balanced in
the long run as a result of the application of Functional Finance, even if there is
no place for the principle of balancing the budget. No matter how much interest
has to be paid on the debt, taxation must not be applied unless it is necessary to
keep spending down to prevent inflation. The interest can be paid by borrowing
still more. As long as the public is willing to keep on lending to the government
there is no difficulty, no matter how many zeros are added to the national debt.
If the public becomes reluctant to keep on lending, it must either hoard the
money or spend it. If the public hoards, the government can print the money
to meet its interest and other obligations, and the only effect is that the public
holds government currency instead of government bonds and the government
is saved the trouble of making interest payments. . . The absolute size of the
national debt does not matter at all [and] however large the interest payments
that have to be made, these do not constitute any burden upon society as a
whole. (Lerner, 1943, pp. 42–3, 47)
Keynesian theories of public debt 137
For Lerner even long-term public debt can’t prove burdensome to any
future generation, because whenever government services the debt it’ll
always pay the same generation then living. Nor is public debt a burden on
the nation, “because every cent in interest or repayment that is collected
from the citizens as taxpayers to meet the debt services is received by the
citizens and government bondholders” (ibid., p. 303). Public debt isn’t “a
sign of national poverty” and “just as increasing the national debt does not
make the nation poorer, so repaying the national debt does not make the
nation richer” (ibid.).
Just as Lerner feels that Keynes doesn’t go far enough in recommending
deficit spending, socialization of investment, redistribution, and inflation, so
he feels Hansen’s policies are too moderate. “[E]ither this [approach] was not
seen clearly or it was considered too shocking or too logical to be told to the
public,” he laments. “Instead it was argued, for example by Alvin Hansen,
that as long as there was a reasonable ratio between national income and debt,
the interest payment on the national debt can easily come from taxes paid out
of the increased national income created by deficit financing” (p. 43). “This
unnecessary ‘appeasement’ opened the way to an extremely effective opposi-
tion to Functional Finance. Even men who have a clear understanding of it,”
who know an internal public debt is no real burden, nevertheless “have come
out strongly against ‘deficit spending’” (ibid.). Keynes is wrong, he says, to
distinguish better from worse investment aims, better from worse forms of
public debt, or better from worse inflation rates, just as Hansen is wrong to
consider any criteria for gauging when public debt or interest expense might
reach unsafe levels. For Lerner no rules should handcuff policymakers or
preclude them from pursuing the single aim of preserving aggregate demand
to achieve full employment. As long as the goal is met, national finances are
sound. Lerner assumes his preferred policy mix achieves the goal.
With full confidence in the Keynesian spending multiplier (implying
that it exceeds three), Lerner asserts that “spending by the government
increases the real national income of goods and services by several times
the amount spent by the government” (p. 46). Will deficit spending be
sufficient, having done its job? Perhaps. “As the national debt increases, it
acts as a self-equilibrating force, gradually diminishing the further need for
its growth and finally reaching an equilibrium level where its tendency to
grow comes completely to an end.” The next result seems paradoxical, for
Lerner contends “the greater the national debt, the greater is the quantity
of private wealth.” If we owe it to ourselves, we also own it by ourselves, so
the more of it (public debt) that’s created, the richer a nation can become.
“The greater the private fortunes the less is the incentive to add to them
by saving out of current income,” and, he says, as savings are curbed,
spending (aggregate demand) increases, which boosts the economy (p. 49).
138 The political economy of public debt
A few public debt scholars in the 1930s and 1940s, skeptical about
Keynesian notions, anticipated some important themes of the public
choice school (see Chapter 4), including (1) pessimism about public
debt, (2) skepticism about the motives of political actors, and (3) suspi-
cion about “debt illusion.” The main theorists are John Maurice Clark
(1884–1963), professor of economics at Columbia (1926–57), and John
H. Williams (1887–1980), professor of economics at Harvard (1921–57).
Each offers early and critical assessments of Keynesian notions – whether
the “socialization of investment,” “pump- priming,” “compensatory
finance,” or “functional finance.” They deny that politicians or bureau-
crats enact policies out of “public spiritedness.” Instead, pushers of fiscal
profligacy seek to expand the size, scope, and cost of government. Clark
and Williams are primarily pessimists about public debt. They excoriate
the public debt cascade of the 1930s, the decade of depression when the
US jobless rate averages 18.2 percent, nearly 40 percent of all US public
outlays are borrowed, and US public leverage more than doubles to 44
percent. The UK government, in contrast, borrows only 5 percent of
outlays during the decade and its leverage declines; whereas US industrial
output in 1939 was 9 percent lower than a decade earlier, in the United
Kingdom it was 21 percent higher. Instead of mitigating the contraction
US deficit spending seems to have reflected and deepened it.
Clark (1939) sees some truth in Keynes’s claim that deficit spending can
stimulate output, but says the effect must “dwindle rapidly and disappear
if the deficit spending stops.” “It is highly improbable,” he argues, “that
this form of stimulus can itself serve to initiate a revival that will endure
after the stimulus is removed.” In fact, “indefinite deficit spending is not an
endurably workable remedy for chronic, partial stagnation of an economic
system like our own.” Instead of socializing investment, he believes “a free
flow of private investment” is the “prime requisite of success,” and deficit
spending tends to displace private investment, diminishing confidence.
“If businessmen expect the public deficit to continue for a long time and
in large volume, they will be affected by fear of ultimate impaired public
credit, or of inflation, or, if not these, then at least by fear of burdensome
taxes in the future.” For Clark “these are all retarding forces,” despite
Keynes’s claim that they’d prove ameliorative; yet he also denies that public
borrowing in the 1930s crowds out other credit, evidenced by low private
loan demand and low interest rates. Nor is public debt a problem for the
economy: “There is nothing self-limiting about the debt the government is
piling up,” he claims, and although it “goes on increasing without limit,”
140 The political economy of public debt
“it does not represent a net burden of this amount on the economic system
as a whole.” Difficulties arise only when the debt becomes “an obligation
on Americans as taxpayers to transfer ever-increasing sums to Americans
as bondholders.” His preoccupation is Hansen-like (1941) and P iketty-like
(2014) – the distributive aspects of debt and supposed privilege of rent-
iers – and conveniently emerges after lenders have lent their capital to the
state, sparing taxpayers. Like many others, Clark believes public bonds but
not bondholders are a good thing; a larger role for the latter “will retard
business activity materially.” He misses the irony that lenders may prefer
lending to the sovereign when its own policies retard business and boost
private bond risk. “We have not reached the limit of our debt-bearing
power,” he says, “but we do seem to have reached a point at which the
piling up of public deficits is a deterrent to private capital outlays.”
Moreover, with the spread of public profligacy the Treasury is “treated as
a bottom-less grab bag for pressure-group interests,” an insight that antici-
pates the public choice theme of rent-seeking.
In his 1941 article “Deficit Spending,” John Williams tackles for the
first time a linchpin of Keynes’s policy. The dilemma is that no US recov-
ery is yet visible despite record peacetime deficits in the 1930s. As today
(see Paul Krugman), the Keynesian response invokes a “counterfactual”
(some might say anti-factual): all would be well now had there been even
more deficit spending than actually occurred. After all, Keynes teaches in
his General Theory (1936) that war can cure economic depression, for it can
lower the jobless rate by conscripting the idle, eradicate “ overproduction”
by destroying factories, and absorb “excess saving” by borrowing to
spend on wasteful state projects. Williams is a proto public choice theo-
rist because he treats not merely the technical economics but the political
economy of deficit spending and realizes it lacks coherence, rationalizes
an expansive but unwarranted role for the state, and is touted by many
academics not because it’s a truly rational policy but because it advances
their career prospects.
Williams identifies three phases of debate in the 1930s. Initially, deficit
spending is described as the passive but unavoidable result of economic
depression and plunging tax revenues; next, it’s defended as a way to
prevent deeper economic decline; last, it’s promulgated as akin to a per-
petual motion machine, complete with mysterious “multipliers” and
“accelerators.” Franklin D. Roosevelt’s [FDR] New Dealers made these
shifts, he says, not by patient economic analysis but pure political expedi-
ency, to save their professional reputations and positions. He relates how
“many persons within the [FDR] Administration favored deficit spend-
ing as a deliberate policy for recovery considerably before such a policy
publicly emerged” and even though FDR initially pledged to balance the
Keynesian theories of public debt 141
A year after Keynes dies (in 1946), Harvard professor Seymour Harris
(1897–1974) devotes a rare, entire volume to Keynesian public debt theory:
National Debt and the New Economics (1947). An adviser to the Kennedy
administration, he published more than 40 volumes while at Harvard
142 The political economy of public debt
economics.” In the United States and Britain the 1970s saw a simultaneous
rise in inflation rates and jobless rates, while the 1980s saw pro-market
policies deliver both disinflation and plummeting jobless rates. Neither
combination was possible according to Keynesian theory (as embodied in
the “Phillips curve”), but some important economists (and Nobel laureates,
like Robert Lucas and Robert Mundell), unwilling to evade the facts,
simply refuted the theory. Many others did evade the facts, for decades, so
by the time of the “Great Recession” (2008–09) a Keynesian revival could
occur, led by Paul Krugman, the Nobel laureate of 2008. Resurrecting
Lerner’s “functional finance,” he claims the crisis is a “depression” and
thus must be cured by limitless deficit spending, a vast monetization of
burgeoning public debts (“quantitative easing”), and zero or negative
interest rates8 – the same advice he gave policymakers in Japan after its
equity market began plummeting in 1990. Krugman’s advice was enacted
in Japan, iteratively, which bred a quarter-century of stagnation, together
with a record rise in public leverage, from 68 percent in 1990 to 226 percent
in 2015. During this time Japan’s industrial production declined 3 percent;
it had grown 354 percent in the prior quarter-century (1966–90). Krugman
wants similar policy for the United States.
Another prominent Keynesian, but with more socialist leanings, Thomas
Piketty addresses “The Question of Public” in the final chapter of his
Capital in the Twenty-First Century (2014). He begins with a puerile plaint:
“The problem with debt is that it usually has to be repaid, so that debt
financing is in the interest of those who have the means to lend to the
government.” The discussion only degenerates thereafter. Like Krugman
and so many predecessors, Piketty detests public bondholders, depicting
them as rich, idle, parasites – the dastardly rentiers who receive “unearned”
income when instead they should be paying confiscatory taxes to fund
profligate sovereigns. “From the standpoint of the general interest,”
Piketty intones, “it is normally preferred to tax the wealthy rather than
borrow from them.” He blames the “seemingly interminable” debt crises
of contemporary times on economic-financial inequality. “The question of
public debt is a question of the distribution of wealth,” he insists, “between
public and private actors in particular, and not a question of absolute
wealth” (p. 540). In short, public fiscal integrity requires robbing the rich.
Like most socialists, Piketty detests “financialization,” the relative
expansion of the financial sector and a concomitant rise in investment
income versus total income, even though historically the phenomenon has
been crucial to economic development and prosperity. Piketty believes it
has harmed economies and has hastened capitalism’s demise since the early
1980s. True or not, one might expect a truly dedicated socialist to welcome
the trend instead of critiquing it; as a self- described social democrat
Keynesian theories of public debt 145
by central banks was institutionalized in the 1970s, especially after the aban-
donment of the Bretton Woods gold exchange standard in 1971. No longer
did any nation credibly commit to repay its debts in money of steady and
reliable value. In the 1970s, for the first time since the end of World War II,
central bank balance sheets were expanding enormously, and to an even
larger extent later (2008–12, by the policy of “quantitative easing”). As
explained in greater detail in Chapter 5, this expansion is accompanied by
“financial repression,” whereby fiscal and monetary policies either induce
or mandate public debt holdings, which helps keep bond yields inordinately
low, in the process harming creditors (savers) so as to benefit borrowers
(debtors), above all sovereign borrowers. All such p olicies originated in the
state-enabling system of Keynesian public finance.
That Keynesianism constitutes a “fiscal revolution” with lasting effects
worldwide is corroborated by the set of policies that arose in the 1980s and
supplanted its dominance. The “new” approach – dubbed “supply-side
economics,” in contrast to the Keynesians’ (aggregate) demand-side focus –
drew on a previous academic revival of classical economics (the “new
classical macroeconomics”), yet ignored its public finance prescriptions.
Supply-side economists condoned but didn’t advocate large budget defi-
cits, and not on the grounds that deficits “stimulated” the economy. For
that, tax-rate cuts on business and the rich were needed, even if spending
couldn’t be curbed. Moreover, unlike taxes, public debt was purchased
voluntarily. A strong dollar, also part of the supply-side policy mix, would
attract foreign buyers of public debt, defying the common fear that exter-
nal debt is the most burdensome. Debate in the 1980s centered on the
shift to high real interest rates and whether they were due to wider budget
deficits (and “crowding out”); yet nominal yields on US bonds declined
steadily during that decade, even as public leverage steadily increased. This
pattern prompted many supply-siders to insist (as Keynesians themselves
well might) that “deficits don’t matter.”
Still, no supply-side economist – the most prominent being Nobel laure-
ate Robert Mundell (1932–) and Arthur Laffer (1940–) – ever advocated
budget deficits, or claimed that tax cuts could fully “pay for themselves.”
They knew deficits might widen amid cuts in tax rates, but this was justified
if spending couldn’t be cut; the only alternative was to try to reduce a deficit
by an economy-harming tax rate hike, as the United States enacted in 1932,
disastrously converting a recession into a depression. Whereas demand-side
Keynesians usually agitate for deficits to “stimulate” moribund economies,
supply-siders passively condone and reluctantly apologize for them, while
denying that they can, alone, boost any economy, financial sector, or rentier
class. According to supply-siders (see especially Mundell, 1960 and 1990),
public deficits and debts are neither harmful nor beneficial per se; they can
150 The political economy of public debt
boost production to the extent they result from tax rate cuts on producers.
Context matters. Thus supply-siders are best classified not as public debt
optimists but as realists, in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton.
Have supply-siders identified an optimal level of public debt? No, but
ironically, some contemporary Keynesians have done so, using the Laffer
curve. They’ve known, of course, about the curve’s great influence on US
tax policy in the 1980s; it posits that tax rates might be so high as to deter
the growth or recognition of income, such that they depress tax revenue;
likewise, it implies that tax rate cuts might boost income and tax revenues.
Despite skepticism about use of the Laffer curve in tax incidence analysis,
a few Keynesians have developed what they call the “Laffer debt curve,”
which tries to demonstrate the existence, not of an optimal rate of tax, but
of an optimal degree of public leverage. I examine the principle in greater
detail in Chapter 5, Section 5.2.
Large US budget deficits in the 1980s caused widespread consterna-
tion, but mostly among those who condemned supply-side policies on
ideological grounds while still defending deficit spending (Keynesians).
They couldn’t deny that the 1980s proved more prosperous compared to the
stagflation-ridden 1970s. Writing in 1965, Keynesian professor and Nobel
laureate James Tobin dismissed the public debt theories of pro-capitalist
political economist James Buchanan (see Chapter 4) on the grounds that
“the political theory is questionable, and so is the economics” (Tobin, 1965,
p. 680). Yet two decades later, amid the success of “Reaganomics” and a
growing appreciation for Buchanan’s views, Tobin claimed US fiscal policy
“was quite conservative from World War II to 1981” and that the United
States in 1985 faced “not an apocalyptic day of reckoning” “but the old
story of crowding out of productive investment” (Tobin, 1985, p. 12). He
convinced himself that “crowding out” was impossible in the 1930s but
indisputable in the 1980s amid fully employed resources, as he tried to
portray supply-side policies as failed.
Politically, supply-side theorists and policy advisors have been useful
to center-right politicians wishing to keep public spending up and tax
rates down; meanwhile Keynesian theorists and policy advisors have been
useful to center-left politicians keen to raise both the rate of spending and
rates of taxation (especially on the rich). Politicians representing the vast
middle of the electoral spectrum are reluctant to shorten their careers by
advocating spending cuts or tax hikes; as such they ensure deficit spending
and debt accumulation, whether in war or peace, in bad economic times or
good. That the majority of voters today condone if not actively endorse
chronic deficit spending is unique to unrestrained democracy. Fiscal prof-
ligacy reflects a majority that obtains most of the benefits of the welfare
state while a minority (the rich) shoulders most of its rising cost.
Keynesian theories of public debt 151
For at least two decades, until the late 1990s, it seemed that Keynesianism
would be eclipsed indefinitely; supply-side policies had revived US produc-
tivity and economic growth, brought simultaneous declines in jobless rates
and inflation rates (the reverse of the 1970s stagflation), a less volatile busi-
ness cycle, budget balanced or surplus, and lower public leverage. Supply-
side policy was ridiculed, morally, as a mere “trickle-down” rationalization
for fiscally privileging the rich, even though the “trickle down” notion
itself conformed closely to the widely-endorsed Rawlsian conception of
“justice” that was held most tenaciously of all by the critics of supply-side
policy. Consequently even flawed Keynesian precepts and policies could
again eclipse the classical (supply-side) approach, in 2008–09, except now it
was considered a specific theory relevant only to recessions, not a “general
theory” pertinent in all circumstances, as Keynes (1936) claimed.
That Keynesian public debt theory made for a permanent fiscal revo-
lution in the past eight decades seems clear from its hasty revival amid
the financial crises of 2008–09, despite its near total eclipse in the 1980s
and 1990s. More remarkable is that this revival seems less inspired by the
relatively reserved approach of John Maynard Keynes and more by the
unrestrained, rules-free approach of Abba Lerner. Finance ministers and
central bankers alike have abandoned most of the remaining (and already
previously loosened) rules and modes of modern public finance, while
pushing for massive deficit spending, vast new debt issuance, perpetually
zero (or negative) interest rates, and stupendous sums of new money crea-
tion and debt monetization (“quantitative easing”). Keynes in the 1930s
had sought to bridge the gap that then existed between classical debt poli-
cies and those he preferred, with limited (initial) success.10 Yet in the early
twenty-first century the developed world enacts Keynesian policy in its
most radical, expansive form. The Keynesians’ dramatic rise (1940s, 1950s,
1960s), fall (1970s, 1980s, 1990s), and (recent) revival contrasts sharply
with the slow but steady ascendancy of the public choice school, with its
unique interpretation of the political origins of public debt and its vast
expansion in an increasingly democratic age. To this school I turn next.
NOTES
1. For two implausible theses see Yglesias (2012) and Varoufakis (2016).
2. Webb and Webb (1911), especially Chapter VI, “How to Prevent Unemployment and
Underemployment.”
3. Keynes cited in Garvy (1975, p. 403).
4. Keynes cited in Wapshott (2012, pp. 198–9).
5. Keynes cited in Brown-Collier and Collier (1995, pp. 342–3).
6. Keynes cited in Brown-Collier and Collier (1995, p. 344).
152 The political economy of public debt
The public choice approach is distinctive in its denial of a bright line between
political and economic realms and its skepticism of the conventional premise
that political actors are selfless, public-spirited altruists promoting the
common good. Public choice theorists presume everyone is self-interested,
but whereas economic actors seek to create and accumulate wealth, political
actors seek to amass and exercise coercive power. To preserve life, liberty
and property, government must be restrained constitutionally.
153
154 The political economy of public debt
I went to Italy to understand and learn about the Italian tradition in public
finance, but the effect [on me] really was to change my whole view about poli-
tics, the state, and man’s relation with the state. I absorbed a lot of the Italian
thinking there, without realizing quite how important it [would become] to my
own career. I don’t think public choice or the approach that I took in a lot of
my other research would have ever got off the ground, certainly not in the same
way, had it not been for the Italian influence. My first piece in 1949 [argued]
that people should in fact pay a little attention to the model of the state, and I
notice, looking back at that piece, that I had a reference to De Viti De Marco’s
book [First Principles of Public Finance, 1936]. . . Apparently he had much more
influence on me than I realized. . . [His] development of the idea of two parallel
models of the state – the monopoly model and the democratic model – carries
through [to my work]. One important influence of the Italian year on me was
not only reading this material but also living in the culture, becoming part of
it, and seeing the attitude of the Italians towards politics, politicians and the
state. [Their attitude] is much more skeptical, much more cynical, much less
idealistic, much less romantic about the state and that influenced me a great
deal. (Buchanan, 2010)
than the extraordinary tax on property,” so in time “it takes the place of
the latter” (p. 387). “On this network of private loans is founded the theory
of public loans,” he writes, and “in fact, the State can abolish the instru-
ment of extraordinary taxation” altogether “if it asks as a direct loan from
the group of ‘capitalists’ the total sum that they were prepared to lend to
the owners of immobile property, and if, at the same time, [the State] asks
from the owners of immobile property a sum [in future taxes] equal to the
interest that they were prepared to pay the ‘capitalists,’ had they instead
been required to borrow from them to pay the extraordinary tax” (p. 382).
In this way the state “makes itself intermediary between private lenders
and borrowers, combines in a single inclusive figure the sums demanded as
loans, contracts in its own name a single loan for the total amount it needs,
and obligates itself to pay a uniform rate of interest” (ibid.).
Public borrowing entails peaceful, beneficial exchange in De Viti De
Marco’s rendering; a cooperative state could rightly demand a large,
one-time (“extraordinary”) sum, through sudden and heavy taxation, but
that would disproportionately harm illiquid taxpayers. The state achieves
the same end by facilitating an intermediation of credit; crucially, public
bonds are bought by “voluntary subscription,” so “there is, therefore, an
advantage to both of the contracting parties” (De Vito De Marco, 1936,
pp. 383–4). Cooperative (liberal) states minimize coercive methods (taxes,
capital levies, and forced loans).
De Viti De Marco is aware of the potential for what was later called
“crowding out,” and how it might raise interest rates. “The State competes
for the available savings against industry and commerce, which also e xercise
a demand for them,” and “what decides the distribution of savings between
the Treasury and industry is the rate of interest paid by the State” (p. 388).
Echoing J.S. Mill, he argues that the interest rate a sovereign pays on its
bonds reflects the extent of the savings pool and its own creditworthiness
(or lack thereof). “The higher the rate of interest promised by the state,
the more available savings it withdraws from industry and commerce, with
resulting disadvantages similar to those produced by excessive rates of
extraordinary taxation” (p. 389). “Disposable savings will be distributed
between the Treasury and industry according to which use offers the greater
advantage to the savers,” so a sovereign that borrows at the market rate
(or below it) doesn’t harm private sector borrowers. In such cases public
debt “will not disorganize the vital nucleus of the industrial activity of the
country” (ibid.). The truly cooperative state borrows harmlessly.
Public borrowing, for De Viti De Marco, is but delayed taxation, and if
imposed by a cooperative state makes it easier for citizens to pay, whether
by installment or because the future taxes needed to service bequeathed
debt are imposed mostly on the rich, those best able to pay and the main
158 The political economy of public debt
lenders to the state in the first place. Whereas taxes paid now “induce each
taxpayer to lower his present standard of living” (De Viti De Marco, 1936,
p. 379), public debt means the citizen will have “to reduce permanently his
future standard of living” (p. 378). It’s an inescapable truism that when
any sovereign finances itself, private incomes (and living standards) must
decline; the real question is whether the decline occurs now (taxes, paid
up-front) or later (debt – or deferred taxes – paid in the future).
Incorporating context, De Viti De Marco denies that either tax-financed
or debt-financed spending are necessarily harmful, helpful, or neutral for
living standards, now or later (pp. 378–9). The national balance sheet has
two sides: “Although the heirs and future generations will receive from their
ancestors a budget which, on the liability side, is depreciated by the amount
of the [public debt],” “the asset side” of their ledger will be “increased by
the utility” flowing from the initial outlay (p. 395). Public spending can be
done right – by investment in long-lived, productive‑infrastructure – and
needn’t be dissipated on consumptive items in the short-term. Yet while
public spending can yield current and future utility, if its marginal utility
doesn’t surpass the marginal disutility of servicing future debt, it can’t
increase living standards, now or later. De Viti de Marco here echoes
Ricardo’s thesis of an equivalence between tax-financed and debt-financed
outlays and denies that public loans entail an uncompensated cost shift to
posterity:
[T]here is no basis for the old, but still widespread opinion that a [public] loan,
unlike an extraordinary tax on property, makes it possible to shift a part of [the
cost of] public expenditure to future generations. On the contrary, in every case
the heirs either receive a patrimony which is lessened by an amount equal to
the capital sum involved, or are held responsible for the continuing payment of
the corresponding amount of interest; there is, as we have seen, no difference
from a financial point of view. The heirs who pay perpetual interest can redeem
their obligation by paying a corresponding capital sum. But this operation is
voluntary, and does not represent a burden; if it is carried out, this is because it
is hoped to derive a gain thereby. (De Viti De Marco, 1936, p. 396)
What of internal public debt? “The loan burdens the budget of the
State with a new expenditure in the form of interest” but to this “there
corresponds a revenue equal in amount” (ibid., p. 390). Do we “owe it to
ourselves,” with no net harm? Yes, according to De Viti De Marco, but the
flows must be disaggregated, to discern disparate effects. “[For the] State it
is a matter of debit and credit, but this is not true of the economic budget
of the community, as is sometimes alleged.” Recall his conception of state
and household budgets together comprising a “national” budget; yet “the
community is not a homogeneous group, which pays 50 million in taxes
Public choice and public debt 159
says De Viti De Marco, when officials fearing a large public debt try to
reduce it by odious taxation, inflation, or repudiation. He prefers to leave
“the solution of the problem to the natural play of economic forces.” He
opposes the self-defeating policies of those “dominated by the idea that
every debt contracted formally and publicly must be formally and pub-
licly extinguished.” Although “it would not be true to say, in accordance
with an old belief ” (of mercantilists) “that the public debt is a part of the
wealth of the country,” yet “its presence and its continuance in the market
produces an additional utility,” for it “often renders subsidiary services in
the facilitation of credit operations between private individuals,” given its
safety and liquidity (ibid., p. 394).
For De Viti De Marco the rational state demonstrates its fiscal rectitude
and credit capacity by efficiently servicing its debt and never unnecessarily
repudiating it, an echo of Hamilton’s position:
A State that has already had recourse to borrowing may need to have further
recourse to it. Good financial policy, foreseeing this, must keep the credit of the
State high; and the credit of the State, like that of an individual, depends not
only on the real solidity of its finances, but also on the opinion of its finances
which is formed by the market. Now, only when the State pays its debts does
it give visible and tangible evidence that the proceeds of a first loan have not
been invested at a loss and that, in any case, the savings of the debtor country
that asks for new credit have increased in the interval. (De Viti De Marco, 1936,
p. 395)
[T]he problem [of deficit spending] resides in the purpose – that is, in the type
of expenditure – not in the means of procuring the necessary sum. Those who
would have the political strength to force a government to adopt an extraor-
dinary tax instead of a loan would have the political strength to prevent the
expenditure which they consider harmful to the country. Another sterile discus-
sion is that inaugurated by those who champion the extraordinary tax against
the public loan on the ground that the former obliges the present generation to
increase its savings, which later accrue to the advantage of future generations,
who inherit a larger patrimony. This opinion has a basis of truth, in so far as –
ceteris paribus – private loans, which bear a fixed maturity date and a higher
interest rate, induce the debtor to free himself from them, whereas the public
loan allows him more time and greater freedom of movement. Even if we admit
that this is true, it has not been shown that it is useful. The action of the State
that would force the savers to reduce their present consumption below the limit
which they consider useful for their well-being runs up against the economic
principle according to which the individual attains the hedonistic maximum
when he is left to distribute his income between the satisfaction of present wants
and the satisfaction of future wants, according to his own appraisal. . . [It is not]
useful to the community, considered in its entirety over a period of several gen-
erations, that a first generation should be induced to save to the maximum, in
order to permit one of the following generations to consume to the maximum.
The economic principle referred to above, which is valid for the individual, must
be assumed to be true also with respect to the aggregate of individuals who
make up a given generation. (De Viti De Marco, 1936, pp. 397–8)
p. 398). Yet De Viti De Marco knows (writing in the 1930s) that liberal-
ism is declining globally, with fascism and socialism ascendant; tax-based,
inflationary, and confiscatory schemes are spreading. In statist regimes
decision-making on public finance is less participatory, often “left to a
single individual or a small oligarchy,” with the result that “a political equi-
librium cannot be attained unless the appraisal of the one coincides with
the suppressed evaluation of the many” (ibid.; original emphasis).
De Viti De Marco is a realist on public debt, because he incorporates so
much relevant context. His main thesis is that liberal democracies (relative
to illiberal autocracies) are more prone to deficit spending and debt build-
ups because they more abide by the rule of law (thus are better able to elicit
creditors’ trust), are richer (thus better able to afford higher debt service),
and ruled by liberal governments that value voluntary choice by citizens
who feel debt finance to be less onerous than tax finance.
De Viti De Marco’s First Principles of Public Finance appeared in
English only in 1936, the year of Keynes’s General Theory. It was pub-
lished in Italian in 1888, so 50 years later it couldn’t easily be deployed as
a counterargument to Keynes’s statist theories. But De Viti De Marco’s
innovative distinction between the public finance practices of the rights-
respecting cooperative state versus the predatory monopolistic state facili-
tates a more accurate assessment of the political economy of the 1930s.
Although unintended, First Principles challenges Keynes’s system, which
Keynes declares (in his introduction to the German edition of his General
Theory) to be most appropriate in the context of a predatory state, with a
vast socialization of investment and “euthanasia of the rentier.” De Viti
De Marco’s First Principles also provides important inspiration for public
choice debt theorists, whose first major argument for a new view of public
debt comes in 1958, with Buchanan’s Public Principles of Public Debt: A
Defense and Restatement, and whose first outright assault on Keynesian
debt theory and practice is launched in 1977, with the publication of
Buchanan and Wagner’s Democracy in Deficit: The Political Legacy of
Lord Keynes. Although De Viti De Marco is foundational for public choice
and best classified as public debt realist, public choice theorists generally
tend to be public debt pessimists.
degree of control over the public purse” (ibid.). “The rise of public credit
is therefore contemporaneous with modern constitutionalism”(p. 528),
which began with Britain’s Glorious Revolution (1688), continued with
the establishment of the US Constitution (1787–91), and culminated in the
overthrow of European monarchs in the 1840s. Constitutional states foster
public credit; limitless democracies do not.
A constitutionally limited government can more readily borrow because
it fosters confidence and savings, thus a pool of liquid capital from which
to draw, if necessary; at the same time, it doesn’t borrow excessively
because it doesn’t chronically deficit spend. When restrictions on the
domain of majority rule wane, as occurred during the US progressive
era (1890–1920), so also do legal- monetary restraints and fiscal
fiscal-
responsibility. In its wake came “the new fiscal thesis [of the Keynesians],”
which “is the more dangerous because it would use the public debt as the
cushion and shock absorber against the rigidities that have been embed-
ded in the economic system by group pressures, special legislation, and the
reluctance of everyone to face unpleasant facts.” When recessions occur,
advocates of budget balance are castigated as morally insensitive, while
advocates of deficit spending are portrayed as compassionate. “The situ-
ation which is most often brought in as being one involving a greater evil
than a deficit,” he notes, “is unemployment,” so “advocates of a balanced
budget as the regular practice are denounced as stony- hearted Tories
who are utterly indifferent to the suffering and distress of those who are
without work or income,” and “increases of debt for the purpose of pro-
viding relief to those without jobs [are] hailed as the acme of justice and
humanitarianism” (Lutz, 1947, p. 696). Unrestrained democracy is biased
toward deficit spending, which is only intensified by popular fear amid
economic contractions.
The main threat to fiscal balance in democratic settings is political pan-
dering to popular passions and efforts to mask the true burden of govern-
ment (measured by its total spending, which must be drawn from private
incomes) by tapping the least onerous funding methods (pp. 528–9).
If by borrowing relatively more and taxing relatively less a burgeoning
state can divert public attention from the true size, scope, and cost of its
operations, it can grow excessively and perpetually, even relative to national
income, and even to the point that public finances aren’t sustainable. The
state resorts to more compulsory funding schemes (or debt defaults).
Gradually, a free society is lost. Political independence also may be lost
by over-reliance on foreigner creditors, especially if they are sovereigns or
semi-sovereign international agencies.
Lutz anticipates the public choice principle of “fiscal illusion,” which
holds that the true burden of government can be disguised by the mix and
166 The political economy of public debt
During [the 1930s] the doctrine emerged that the manipulation of public credit
was a proper and necessary application of fiscal policy and that no harm could
be done by an indefinite expansion of debt. This is equivalent to saying that
no harm can be done to the democratic system by permitting the government
indefinitely to administer affairs independently by those who must finally
settle the account. By no stretch of the imagination is it conceivable that the
American people would have sanctioned the [government] spending of the
1930s had it been financed through taxation. Public credit prevented the main-
tenance of that scrutiny of expenditures which is essential to popular control
over the purse. There was, therefore, a surrender of some part or element of that
control, and to that degree a failure during these years to realize complete self-
government. (Lutz, 1947, p. 529)
deny that public borrowing is ever productive; they “opposed the use of
public credit on the ground that it led to extravagance, encouraged resort
to war, and induced generally disadvantageous economic conditions for
the nation which employed it.” In opposition stands “Dietzel and various
more recent German authorities who approve of the use of credit for
financing all extraordinary expenditure on the ground that the state is
part of the immaterial capital of society and that any unusual outlay in
its service is in the nature of an investment.” In this idyllic view “public
loans become a normal feature of the finances of the progressive state, and
are to be regarded as both just and beneficial” (pp. 536–7). Lutz stresses
that “none of these extreme views can be accepted” – whether pessimis-
tic or optimistic – because “the usefulness of the loan depends on the
usefulness of the purpose to which it is devoted.” Public debt is “proper or
not, according to the circumstances that give rise to its use.” It’s “a hand-
maiden of taxation” and shouldn’t be a main source of funds; at best it’s
“a supplement to the current [tax] revenues under certain conditions” and
thus “a useful and important device for meeting financial burdens that are
too great for the immediate capacity of the revenue system, or which are of
such a nature as to warrant equalization of the load over a period of time.”
Otherwise, it’s inadvisable. Misuse and abuse occurs when p oliticians
resort to debt to avoid alienating the electorate by taxes:
Unfortunately, the motive back of its use sometimes is the desire to evade the
necessity of immediate taxation [because borrowing] looks like an easier way to
pay the bills. The line between legitimate equalization of burden and improper
evasion of the cost is not always easily drawn, and many specious arguments
can always be found to prove that the thing which the community wants to do
is the wise and necessary thing to do. . . Politicians are usually fairly clever in
gauging the popular inclination, and they would be the first to realize the prac-
tical unwisdom of increasing taxes as compared with the (temporarily) easier
method of loans. [But] those who dance to the music should liberally contribute
to the fiddler. (Lutz, 1947, p. 537)
the optimist Hansen (1942), to the effect that an internally held public debt
is no net burden to society, because the interest paid by taxpayers equals
that received by bondholders, Lutz says it “correctly describes the transfer
character of taxing and spending,” for it’s a plain fact that “the money goes
in and comes out,” but Hansen wrongly infers “that the size of the debt, and
therefore the size of the transfer payments for debt service, are of no con-
sequence, which means the debt itself may as well be a large one as a small
one.” This overlooks the fact that greater debt and higher interest expense
increase taxpayer burdens and “if the taxes for debt service, or for other
purposes, become heavy enough to impair the incentives of those who must
pay them, production, employment, and income are adversely affected” and
this is “by no means offset by the fact that other members of the community
are receiving the funds paid out as interest” (Lutz, 1947, p. 700). Elsewhere
Lutz (1945, p. 119) denies that “the debt is no burden since we owe it to
ourselves,” for current taxpayers suffer from it more than bondholders
benefit by it. The analysis goes awry under the veil of aggregation; for Lutz
“the unity of our common social interest does not go that far.”
By this account, a fundamental and deleterious transformation in public
finance occurred during World War I, long before Keynes became influ-
ential. “The [US] federal debt situation as of June 30, 1914, on the eve of
the first World War, was very favorable” because “the total interest-bearing
debt was relatively small, the interest rate was moderate, and the maturities
offered no difficulties for the future” (Lutz, 1947, p. 566). Then “the trans-
formation in the [US] federal debt situation between 1914 and 1919 was
great enough to shock anyone who could appreciate the essentials of sound
financial policy.” By 1920 US interest expense alone exceeded the principal
it owed in 1914 (p. 568). Yet US public debt was radically reduced in the
1920s, along with federal tax rates and spending; as the economy boomed
amid budget surpluses no top economist dared claim deficit spending was
a “stimulant.” Lutz’s initial critique of 1930s’ deficit spending appeared
in the Harvard Business Review in 1938; there he urges policymakers to
admit that higher taxes and public debts alike can impede recovery, that in
the United States the “[federal] loan policy would retard recovery fully as
much as more taxation would have done” (Lutz, 1938, p. 129), even amid
underemployment and “excessive” savings. The real burden of government
is its spending, regardless of how it’s financed (as per Ricardo); the burden
can’t be mitigated by low capacity utilization. Public spending should have
been restrained in the 1930s, with greater reliance on tax finance (but not
higher tax rates), and more flexible wage rates to clear the market and
avoid mass joblessness (Lutz, 1947, p. 686). Instead, spending, taxes and
debt all skyrocketed, while wage rates remained elevated (with official US
encouragement), which made things far worse than they had to be.
174 The political economy of public debt
In sum, Lutz believes the US debt incurred between 1930 and 1938
(which more than doubled to $37 billion) “has not been entirely a clear
gain” because of the implicit tax burden it imposes; interest payments flow
to some pockets (public bondholders) but a deadweight resulted. Much of
the newly issued public debt was sold to banks instead of individuals, amid
depressed demand for private credit, which artificially reduced bond yields;
when yields eventually rise bond prices will plummet and the refunding
of maturing principal will necessitate paying higher, less unaffordable
interest rates. Lutz could be describing the United States in 2015 when
he writes (in 1938) that “the government has become committed to the
maintenance of easy money, low interest rates, and low investment yield,
and to the manipulation of the market in order to preserve this status” and
to “a singularly inconsistent policy with respect to banking reserves and
the credit inflation which excess reserves tend to encourage” (Lutz, 1938,
p. 134). Deficit spending and money creation yield a permanently bloated
sovereign:
[Public] credit inflation is so easy, so painless for all, and it produces such a
soothing sense of unlimited financial resources, that it has lulled all but the
very few into a false sense of security. One of the worst results of the manner in
which the depression requirements have been financed is the permanent effect
of this policy on the level of public expenditures. The history of the federal
finances reveals that after every great emergency expansion, it has been impos-
sible ever to reduce the total expenditure to anything like the earlier amount.
Heretofore, war has been the chief national emergency. . .[but now] the lavish
depression spending has had the same effect. When the large deficit was decided
upon, everyone supposed that it would be but temporary. . . Only a few real-
ized that a temporary expansion of this magnitude would leave its permanent
mark. In 2000 A.D. American taxpayers will still be feeling the effects of the
“temporary” spending policy that was adopted in the 1930s. (Lutz, 1938, p. 136)
Lutz makes the novel claim that deficit spending facilitates excessive public
spending, not only the reverse. The result may be a debt spiral, with exces-
sive spending causing deficits, but cheap finance exerting no pressure to
curb outlays, so deficit spending intensifies. This is exactly the pattern
experienced by Japan since 1990.
Lutz, we’ve seen, is respectful of the rentier class, but also knows public
prejudice is otherwise; he thinks it relevant to sustainability, for public
debt embodies “conflicts of group interest and prejudices so serious as to
increase the difficulty of appraising correctly the national or community
integrity” (Lutz, 1947, p. 535). At times the public creditor is understood
as “a progressive citizen and a great patriot,” but other times detested as “a
grasping money lender,” “a Shylock,” or “obstructer of progress” (ibid.).
More likely the creditor-patriot than the devil-patriot will receive empathy
Public choice and public debt 175
(and due recompense). “Always, when the time for payment comes, the
investor [in public bonds] can be put in the wrong by being classed with
the money changers,” and although most people prize promise-keeping
and the sanctity of contract, it’s rarely so with “the economic conflict
represented by the public debtor-creditor relation,” where “deep-seated
prejudices are very easily aroused, and the appeal to this prejudice is a
sure fire demagogic trick.” Conflict is likely “when there is some doubt
about the underlying justification for the loan,” for “if borrowing has been
undertaken without a first-rate case for it, the fanning of class prejudices is
a good way to shift the blame” (ibid.). Lutz is aware of the sordid history
of popular hatred for the money-lender and (thanks to Keynes) profes-
sional disdain for the “rentier,” but, while conceding it garners votes in a
democracy he rejects such hatred. Abuse of creditors abuses public credit.
For some optimists an expanding public debt isn’t a burden if interest
expense remains a steady proportion of national income. Lutz argues oth-
erwise. First, there’s no guarantee that GDP will keep rising sufficiently, yet
debt load is fixed. Second, interest rates might not remain low (2 percent
at the time), especially given rising inflation. Third, loan proceeds might
be spent on non-remunerative transfers instead of long-lived capital goods
yielding future income; the former, unlike the latter, render public debt
less sustainable. Even if loan proceeds are invested in productive public
infrastructure, bond maturity dates shouldn’t surpass the lifespan of assets
created (Lutz, 1947, pp. 700–702).
As to the limits of public debt, we’ve seen Lutz argue that “public credit
is not indefinitely expansible, nor is it a boundless reservoir that may be
drawn upon indefinitely without replenishment” (p. 556). Public borrow-
ing capacity (credit) can dissipate swiftly if not cultivated and established
far above outstanding debts:
[The] community that has adopted the loan method of financing all of its
permanent improvement projects will find that in time it has about used up its
available credit resources. Such a community is thus placed at a distinct and pos-
sibly a very serious disadvantage whenever a genuine emergency does appear.
Public credit is not an unlimited resource. Rather, it is a limited resource the
supply of which should be conserved in the main for those circumstances and
requirements which cannot be fitted readily into the normal scheme of current
expenditures and revenues. If it is used for defraying costs that should really
be met out of current revenues, there will be no reserve protection against real
emergencies. Since it is probably more costly to finance needed improvements in
this way, a community that yields to the temptation to do so is inclined, without
realizing it, to live beyond its means. (Lutz, 1947, p. 541)
Lutz is careful to distinguish public credit and public debt: the former
pertains to a sovereign’s capacity to borrow, the latter to its actual
176 The political economy of public debt
market, as anyone is free to do,” not directly from the Treasury, via mon-
etization (p. 552). To be exact then, he doesn’t oppose all m onetization,
only direct monetization. But at least he acknowledges that fiscal d
ynamics
affect monetary dynamics. Monetized public debts can boost inflation
and large debts alone boost inflationary expectations. If “the [public]
debt increase is pushed far enough, the ensuing price inflation may attain
proportions that would be tantamount to complete worthlessness of the
existing currency, and likewise, of all obligations, public or private, that
were payable in such currency” (p. 629). Currency depreciation is “a device
for lightening the [public debt] burden,” and although “complete destruc-
tion of debt through ruinous inflation” is rare, partial erosion by inflation
is common. There’s “a long and disreputable record” of currency debase-
ment “inaugurated [by sovereigns] for the primary purpose of repudiating
a part of the public debt” (p. 630). Tax payers and sovereigns alike gain
at the expense of creditors. Were money stable, as under a gold standard,
Lutz says, deflations and inflations could be avoided and creditor-debtor
relations made secure.
Although politically expedient, Lutz believes sovereign reliance on a
central bank undermines public credit because it jeopardizes operational
autonomy in each realm. The fiscal authority effectively compels the
monetary authority to facilitate its profligacy, which discredits the money
issued by the central bank and disorders the private sector. “Sound finance
requires that each member of this close affiliation [between Treasury and
banks] should be independent of the other. Those who advocate govern-
ment ownership and monopoly of all banking and credit institutions and
facilities overlook or disregard the importance of providing adequate
checks and balances.” If banks become a mere branch of the finance
ministry, the system is compromised. “A government monopoly of banking
under treasury control would eliminate all chance of an i ndependent check
on treasury credit policy. The temptation for treasury manipulation of
credit would be irresistible, and it would never be possible for anyone to
know whether this manipulation was primarily inspired by the exigencies
of government financing or by the requirements of the business s ituation.”
Lutz wants a non-political financial system, even while recognizing the
trend in the twentieth century is towards more, not less politicization.
“Instead of creating a government monopoly of credit, the Federal
Reserve Bank system should be completely free of government influence,
so far as concerns policy” (p. 627). Here he foreshadows the debate about
central bank independence – by now (2015) a thing of the past.
The overindebted state also induces or compels the buying and holding
of its bonds to ensure demand and a lower interest rate; it’s a “forced
loan” in Lutz’s time, but now dubbed “financial repression.” For Lutz “the
180 The political economy of public debt
growth of the public debt imperils the financial stability of the nation
and undermines the very foundations of the economic system.” Perpetual
debt growth “must be viewed with deep apprehension,” he says (p. 11), but
is vague about the nature of the harm; rejecting Hansen’s “stagnation”
thesis, he denies that chronic deficit spending cures anything, but doesn’t
specify any outer limits for public debt. On the contrary, he claims “the
vast increase in public [wartime] expenditures [1941–43] has mopped up
unemployment and given us a great increase in production.” He opposes
only disproportionate reliance on borrowing. He favors deficit spending
amid “depression and readjustment,” doesn’t insist on budget balance each
year, and doesn’t say cut the debt; “it is only necessary that the debt be kept
under easy control,” “well within revenue possibilities” (pp. 50–52).
What can we make of Moulton’s advice that public debt be limited
by “revenue possibilities?” In 1944–45 US federal tax revenues were
22 percent of GDP but averaged just 17 percent of GDP in the subsequent
half-century. That’s a diminution of revenue possibilities. In a subsec-
tion of his 1943 monograph, titled “Limits to the Public Debt,” Moulton
derides Hansen for wanting public debt “kept within safe limits,” for ref-
erencing national income, types of taxation, and levels of state investment
and spending, and for suggesting “that the [public] debt [of the United
States] might safely be double the national income,” or 200 percent of GDP
(p. 66), on the grounds that Britain’s public leverage reached that high in
1818 and in 1923. He dismisses Hansen’s “alleged fact,” but in fact it was
factual: UK public leverage reached 261 percent in 1821 and 182 percent
in 1923, and although 157 percent in 1943, reached 238 percent by 1947
without default risk. Hansen was correct, not that public leverage had no
limit, but that it could reach heights far above what anyone was willing to
project. Evading the facts behind Hansen’s bold claim, Moulton can only
vaguely claim that “the safe limits of public debt cannot be gauged com-
paring the national income with the public debt alone” (p. 67). He avoids
objective metrics. The United States, he feels, will “drift toward the deep
financial waters from which there is no return other than through repu-
diation in one form or another” (p. 89). He fails to note the de facto US
default in 1933, by the 60 percent devaluation of the dollar and abrogation
of gold clauses in all debt contracts.
Moulton is a debt pessimist, but guilty of what he complains of in
Keynesian optimists: that they are “viewing the debt problem in isolation”
with analysis that “furnishes no guidance as to the safe limits of debt
expansion” (p. 67). At most he can only allude to “the basic fallacy in the
new philosophy of public expenditure and debt,” meaning “the argument
that all government expenditures, for whatever purpose, generate money
income” (p. 60). In the classical mode he suggests why it’s a dubious claim,
184 The political economy of public debt
especially for spending on social transfers and jobless subsidies, and why it’s
not likely even for most debt-financed spending on public infrastructure.
To his credit (much like Lutz, but nothing like Keynes) Moulton warns
against anti-capitalist schemes of public finance. “With unlimited [public]
debt expansion,” he says, “we cannot prevent inflation without the use of
totalitarian methods of control” (p. 88), due to price edicts and rationing.
Keynes had declared, in the German edition of his General Theory (1936),
that “the theory of output as a whole, which the following book purports
to provide, is much more easily adapted to the conditions of a totalitar-
ian state,” than a free one. Moulton, in contrast, prefers a free state, but
glimpses that unrestrained democracy generates public profligacy. “The
apparently easy way [in public finance],” he laments, “is always the popular
way [politically]” (Moulton, 1943, p. 13). Indeed, “there is nothing in the
long history of public finance which indicates that any government, and
especially a democratic government, can be depended upon to apply
the brakes to credit expansion, when the proper moment has arrived”
(pp. 79–80).
Next comes Ludwig von Mises (1881–1973), a pro-capitalist but public
debt pessimist who in the late 1940s anticipates many public choice
themes well before their ascendency. Mises has numerous works opposing
Keynes’s ideas, deficit spending, and inflation (Mises, 1948) but he devotes
little attention to public debt. His earlier, more formidable studies on
money and credit (Mises, 1912, 1978) ignore public debt, likely because
the world had yet to witness its cascade during World War I and the
Great Depression. Yet Mises has insightful passages on public debt in his
magisterial work, Human Action (1949). His novel contention is that large
public debts redistribute wealth not so much from the present to the future
(intergenerationally) but presently, from hard-working taxpayers to idle
bondholders, which harms both liberty and prosperity. Government bor-
rowing competes unfairly for scarce pools of private saving because the
taxing power is a legalized, monopolistic command over resources, while
the borrowing power is presumed to be “risk free.” Worse, most public
spending is consumptive and even spending on public capital projects is
often dissipated by bureaucratic inefficiency. Public borrowing crowds out
private saving and investment, which impedes capital accumulation and
retards long-term economic growth. Public debts arise because the sover-
eign refuses to curtail spending or raise tax revenues; next it tries monetary
debasement (inflation) to lower debt burden by surreptitiously robbing
creditors. Mises’s account is classical yet anticipates the public choice
approach by assuming states are self-promoting Leviathans. Economists
should expect states to spend, tax, borrow, regulate, and inflate for pure
self-aggrandizement, not to promote the commonweal.
Public choice and public debt 185
[T]he eternal state [took the creditor-investor] under its wing and guaranteed
him the undisturbed enjoyment of his funds. Henceforth his income no longer
stemmed from the process of supplying the wants of the consumers in the best
possible way, but from the taxes levied by the state apparatus of compulsion and
coercion. [The creditor-investor] was no longer a servant of his fellow citizens,
subject to their sovereignty; he was a partner of the government which ruled the
people and exacted tribute from them. What the government paid in interest
was less than what the market offered. But this difference was far outweighed
by the unquestionable solvency of the debtor, the state whose revenue did not
depend on satisfying the public, but on insisting on the payment of taxes. . .
[The creditor-investor], no longer prepared to risk his hard-earned wealth,
[comes to prefer] investment in [public debt] because [he wants] to be free from
the law of the market. (Mises, 1949, pp. 225–6)
A good case can be made out for short-term government debts under special
conditions [as opposed to long-term, perpetual public debts]. Of course, the
popular justification of war loans is nonsensical. All the materials needed for
the conduct of a war must be provided by restriction of civilian consumption,
by using up a part of the capital available, and by working harder. The whole
burden of warring falls upon the living generation. The coming generations are
only affected to the extent to which, on account of the war expenditure, they
will inherit less from those now living than they would have if no war had been
fought. Financing a war through loans does not shift the burden to the sons and
grandson. It is merely a method of shifting the burden among the citizens [who
are currently living]. (Mises, 1949, p. 227)
[The] Pauls of 1940 do not owe it to themselves. It is the Peters of 1970 who owe
it to the Pauls of 1940. The whole system is the acme of the short-run principle.
The statesmen of 1940 solve their problems by shifting them to the statesmen of
1970. On that date the statesman of 1940 will be dead or elder statesmen glory-
ing in their wonderful achievement, social security. The Santa Claus fables of
the welfare school are characterized by their complete failure to grasp capital
[and their] implicit assumption that there is an abundant supply of capital
goods. (Mises, 1949, pp. 847–8)
Reflecting the classical position, Mises insists that “it is additional capital
accumulation alone that brings about technological improvement, rising
wage rates, and a higher standard of living,” and unfortunately “history
does not provide an example of capital accumulation brought about by
government” (ibid., p. 851). His analysis, striking at Keynesian plans for
a vast “socialization of investment,” foreshadows studies (by Harvard’s
Martin Feldstein, and others) of unfunded social insurance schemes and
how they erode a nation’s capacity to save, invest, boost productivity, and
prosper.
Mises’s political economy attributes degenerate public finance to the
electoral myopia inherent in populist democracies, for under “democratic
government, the problem of capital preservation and accumulation of
additional capital becomes the main issue of political antagonism. There
will be demagogues to contend that more could be dedicated to current
consumption” and “the various [political] parties will outbid one another
188 The political economy of public debt
in promising the voters more government spending and at the same time
a reduction of all taxes which do not excessively burden the rich” (p. 849).
Over the following decades Keynesians and Democrats would enact more
spending but not more tax revenues, while supply-siders and Republicans
would enact more tax-rate cuts but not spending cuts; the logical result –
wider deficits and rising debts – reflected not so much partisan bickering
but bipartisan pandering. Yet Mises doesn’t blame democracy per se; in
1949 it wasn’t yet so unconstrained; instead he blames false economic ideas
and statist ideologies, and in this respect he lies outside the usual public
choice perspective.
Mises concedes that when governments in the nineteenth century were
less democratic and more constitutionally limited, public spending was
lower relative to national income, money was redeemable in gold, and
most citizens viewed the state “as an institution whose operation required
an expenditure of money which must be defrayed by taxes paid by the
citizens.” By the mid-twentieth century, however, “the majority of citizens
look upon government as an agency dispensing benefits,” “a spender,
not a taker,” to the point where “the wage earners and the farmers expect
to receive from the treasury more than they contribute to its revenues.”
This echoes Tocqueville (1835–40), a century earlier, who contended that
unchecked democracy created a “soft despotism” of widespread, popular
dependency on the state. By Mises’s account, “these popular tenets were
rationalized and elevated to the rank of quasi-economic doctrine by Lord
Keynes and his disciples.” In truth, “spending and unbalanced budgets
are merely symptoms for capital consumption,” and indeed “the total
complex of [government] financial policies” now “tends toward capital
consumption” (Mises, 1949, p. 850). Instead of salvaging a faltering free
market, Keynesian policies assault saving, rentiers, and capital accumula-
tion, thus productivity gains, real wages, and living standards. The problem
is false economic ideas, which no legislative reform (whether a balanced
budget mandate or a gold standard) can mitigate. What’s needed, he
feels, is more and better economic education. Mises is chagrined about
the economic ignorance of democratic citizenry, but reluctant to indict
any democracy’s politicians; only autocrats, he contends, are selfish,
power-hungry anti-capitalists:
democratic or dictatorial, can free itself from the sway of the generally accepted
ideology. Those advocating a restriction on the parliament’s prerogatives in
budgeting and taxation issues or even a complete substitution of a uthoritarian
government for representative government are blinded by the chimerical image
of a perfect chief of state. This man, no less benevolent than wise, would be
sincerely dedicated to the promotion of his subject’s lasting welfare. The real
Führer, however, turns out to be a mortal man who first of all aims at the
perpetuation of his own supremacy and that of his kin, his friends, and his
party. As far as he may resort to unpopular measures, he does so for the sake of
these objectives. (Mises, 1949, p. 850)
issuing debt during war versus depression; the impact of debt on infla-
tion (and vice versa); and whether deficit spending can promote economic
stability or full employment.
Buchanan begins by examining “the currently dominant theory of
public debt,” which is the “new [Keynesian] orthodoxy.” This account
has currency today, given the resurgence of Keynesian policy since 2008.
Buchanan is aware that the “new orthodoxy” isn’t genuinely novel but in
truth a reprise of mercantilist and Malthusian notions (as even Keynes
acknowledged in 1936 in the penultimate chapter of his General Theory).
Buchanan believes adherents “should have realized that the same a rguments
[had] been floating around since the early years of the e ighteenth century”
and that classical theorists had rebutted them (Buchanan, 1958, p. 15). A
real scientist must know the history of his field.
Buchanan believes confusion on public debt often reflects false con-
ceptualizing. “Public debt is far too generic a term,” he contends; indeed,
he finds nine distinct meanings of the term (ibid., pp. 18–25). Apparently
public debt can have both real and monetary effects, can exert distinct
effects under full employment as against unemployment, under infla-
tion versus price stability, or amid war versus peace. Its effects differ if
it’s underwritten by banks or by the public, and if its proceeds are spent
on ordinary consumption and transfer payments or value-added public
capital projects (infrastructure). Buchanan’s analytical disaggregation is
more typical of classical economics and microeconomics than it is of
Keynesian macroeconomics. “What has all of this to do with the theory
of the public debt?” he asks. Buchanan wants to explain and predict “the
size of the debt itself ” as well as “the effects of issuing debt, or of changing
the magnitude of the outstanding debt” (p. 20). Only three main methods
finance public spending: taxing, borrowing, and money creation. If spend-
ing is “given” and debt finance forbidden, taxation alone remains, be it
explicit or implicit (inflation):
Borrowing is only one means through which the government secures command
over monetary resources, which, except in the case of anti-inflationary debt
issue, the government uses to purchase real resources. Borrowing is, therefore,
an alternative to taxation. If a given public expenditure is to be financed, this
can only be accomplished in three ways: taxes, loans, and currency inflation.
The analysis of the effects of debt issue must, therefore, compare what will
happen under the debt with what will happen under the tax or inflation. . . Debt
creation is an alternative to increased taxation, currency inflation, or expendi-
ture reduction. When we analyze the effects of debt we must always conduct the
analysis in differential terms; that is, we must allow one of the three possible
compensating variables to be changed in an offsetting way. This is the only per-
missible means of actually comparing what will happen with and without the
debt. (Buchanan, 1958, pp. 21–2)
Public choice and public debt 193
the fact that only the present generation is burdened; it’s impossible to
“shift” this burden to the not-yet-born, or to do so without also forwarding
assets, which means forwarding a positive net worth. Buchanan knows how
Keynesian theory concedes that subgroups can be affected d ifferently by tax
finance versus debt finance, but also holds that “debt issue leaves ‘future’
generations with a heritage of both claims and obligations,” and these “can
represent no aggregate real burden because they cancel each other, at least
for the internally-held public debt” (p. 6). “The public debt is, of course,
not burden-less,” Buchanan argues, for “the process of making the required
interest transfers involves a net burden,” and “these transfer burdens are
essentially of a ‘frictional’ or ‘stresses and strains’ variety,” depending on
the extent of overlap between taxpayers and public bondholders. Still,
the “primary real burden” of a public debt is on future generations. (p. 7).
Posterity must pay the taxes to service the debt.
For Buchanan, as for Lutz, public debt is mainly deferred taxation; if
the cost of public spending today, which mostly benefits living generations,
is deferred, they enjoy benefits without costs, while future generations
get the (debt) costs without the benefits (of spending); living generations
exploit future generations, treating them as means, without consent. The
Keynesians insist that every generation at every point in time receives both
assets and liabilities – two sides of the same fiscal coin. Moreover, they
don’t deny that public debt is a burden, only that if it is, it is so presently,
as a form of tax, not a deferred tax. Central to Buchanan’s case is the
insight that public creditors, unlike taxpayers, aren’t compelled; they lend
freely and expect to gain, not lose or sacrifice anything, so the real sacri-
fice is shifted, or deferred, to other shoulders. Buchanan insists that future
taxpayers are forced to repay the heirs of initial creditors.
Buchanan’s refutation of the first (Keynesian) proposition, that the
primary real burden of a public debt is not shifted to future generations,
appears in Chapter 4 (“Concerning Future Generations”) of Public
Principles of Public Debt (Buchanan, 1958, pp. 26–37). His argument, he
admits, is in “classical form,” for he assumes full employment, that public
debt is incurred for real (economic) purposes, that sovereigns use savings
that otherwise would be invested privately, and that debt issuance doesn’t
materially alter interest rates (because public spending is low relative to
GDP). But it’s crucial to realize that “the mere shifting of resources from
private to public employment does not carry with it any implication of
sacrifice or payment,” for if the shift reflects “the voluntary actions of
worsened, his lot by the transaction,” and is “the only individual who actu-
ally gives up a current command over economic resources,” while “other
individuals in the economy are presumably unaffected.” In short, “the
economy, considered as the sum of the individual economic units within it,
undergoes no sacrifice or burden when [public] debt is created” (pp. 28–9;
original emphasis). It’s quite an admission for a debt pessimist like
Buchanan; yet it’s undeniable that a consensual purchase is non-sacrificial.
What he opposes, then, is what he imagines to be a future sacrifice of the
not-yet-born, who presently lack consent.
Interestingly, Buchanan suggests that divergent political theories might
explain ostensible differences about public debt incidence. “It is perhaps
not surprising,” he writes, “to find this essentially organic conception of the
economy or the state incorporated in the debt theory of [nineteenth-century
German economist] Adolf Wagner,” a theory which denies that public debt
burdens posterity. If all groups and generations are bundled analytically in
some collective “volk,” none can be specifically victimized or “burdened.”
But, Buchanan notes, some nations embody “democratic governmental
institutions” with a “social philosophy [that] lies in the individualistic
and utilitarian tradition,” and it’s there that real perpetrators and victims
will feel true costs and benefits. Buchanan thinks most fiscal scholars are
ignorant of political theory and its effect on their analyses. He worries that
“with rare exceptions, no attention at all has been given to the political
structure and to the possibility of inconsistency between the policy impli-
cations of fiscal analysis and the political forms existent” (p. 29). One tragic
result is that “English- language scholars” who might otherwise reject
the Wagnerian ideal of the monolithic, organic state, nevertheless push
theories requiring such a state. One thinks of Keynes, purportedly eager
to “save capitalism,” yet telling German readers in the 1936 preface to the
German edition of his General Theory that his policies are most appro-
priate in a totalitarian state. For Buchanan, “an individualistic society”
usually “governs itself through the use of democratic political forms,”
so “the idea of the ‘group’ or the ‘whole’ as a sentient being is contrary
to the fundamental principle of social organization.” In this setting “the
individual or the family is, and must be, the basic philosophical entity in
this society,” in which case “it is misleading to speak of group sacrifice or
burden or payment or benefit unless such aggregates can be broken down
into component parts” and “imputed to the individual or family.” But “this
elemental and necessary step cannot be taken with respect to the primary
real burden of the public debt,” for “the fact that economic resources are
given up when the public expenditure is made does not, in any way, demon-
strate the existence of a sacrifice or burden on individual members of the
social group” (pp. 29–30).
196 The political economy of public debt
net worth” (p. 41). He notes that tax deferred payments reduce taxpayers’
assets and net worth, while the receipt of interest increases the assets and
net worth of the public bondholder by a like sum. There is no change in
aggregate net worth. If so, the private-public debt analogy seems false after
all. Yet Buchanan insists the analogy is true, that to reject it is methodo-
logically erroneous and a failure to compare relevant alternatives. It’s mis-
leading to count the public bondholder’s net worth as “uniquely increased
by the receipt of interest” on his bonds, for he could have invested his
capital elsewhere and still earn interest. No extra interest income flows
from public bonds. In short, “the increase in net worth of the bondholders
would have occurred without the public debt,” so “only the decrease in net
worth of the taxpayers” can be attributed to the new issue of public debt
(p. 42; original emphasis).
Although a taxpayer sees no change in his net worth when a new public
loan is floated, his worth is surely reduced when he pays taxes to service
it. Absent that he would have maintained his worth. “From this corrected
analysis,” Buchanan concludes, “the public borrower (that is, the taxpayer)
is at no time in a position different from the private borrower,” so “the
analogy between the two holds good in all of the essential respects” (p. 45).
The Keynesians are wrong to claim that the public borrower is fundamen-
tally different from the individual borrower – wrong to believe sovereigns
face no inherent debt limits and thus can’t truly falter or default, because
“we owe it to ourselves,” while all relevant payments cross-cancel. In
truth, Buchanan argues, each accesses income, to service their debts. Each
faces debt limits. Each might misuse loan proceeds and spend them on
“wasteful” things. Each can become insolvent and default. The false belief
in the second Keynesian proposition is that the interest received by public
bondholders uniquely offsets the taxes citizens must pay to service the
bonds; in fact, had the investor lent elsewhere instead of to the state, he still
would have earned interest income. Buchanan denies that a net addition
of interest income can arise from new public debt, whereas a new interest
expense surely arises, and is borne by taxpayers.
A realist might note that there’s some truth in both the optimistic view
of the Keynesian and pessimistic view of Buchanan: that public debt
incidence falls on the living, not on posterity (per Keynes, but contra
Buchanan), but if the proceeds aren’t spent productively, it’s burdensome
to taxpayers (per Keynes, but contra Buchanan).
A matter of greater relevance isn’t even discussed in Public Principles
of Public Debt – the fact that government, by its nature, holds a legal
monopoly on the use of legitimate force, while persons and companies
don’t. Only a state can legally compel tax paying, which is crucial to its
capacity for debt servicing, whereas private actors who do so commit
Public choice and public debt 199
larceny. Only a state can legally conscript labor (for military purposes) and
pay it less than market value (Siu, 2008), whereas private actors who do so
commit kidnapping. Only a state can legally issue unlimited sums of irre-
deemable paper money (or its electronic equivalent), whereas private actors
who do so commit counterfeiting. Only a government can run its court
system, including bankruptcy courts, and by the principle of sovereign
immunity exclude itself from prosecution, whereas private actors who do
so commit an obstruction of justice. In all these ways, Buchanan neglects
to note, a state differs from the citizen, so likewise the public debtor differs
from the private debtor, and not merely on legal grounds, because legal
sanction permits equally vast differences in the financial-economic realm.
Taxes can be raised to service public debts. No state that runs its own
bankruptcy courts subjects itself to bankruptcy. How then can a public
debtor be at risk of “going bankrupt?” Inflation alone permits highly
leveraged states to “live beyond their means.” As Keynes explained in 1923
in A Tract on Monetary Reform: “a government can live for a long time by
printing paper money,” and “by this means secure the command over real
resources” every bit as “real as those obtained by taxation,” and although
“the [inflationary] method [of public finance] is condemned,” one must
admit its “efficacy,” for a profligate “government can live by this means
when it can live by no other.” Such tactics, although not morally laudable,
nonetheless are now legally permissible.
Buchanan also fails to note that in a more enlightened age like the nineteenth
century, when most Western governments were more c onstitutionally limited
than now, not yet aware of the wide range of potentially r emunerative taxes
that could be imposed, and restrained monetarily by the classical gold stand-
ard, it made more sense to find similarity in the powers of the individual and
of the state, or in the capacities of private and public debtors. Each faced
constraints; each had to behave, fiscally, or risk financial ruin. Today’s sov-
ereigns, in contrast, face few such constraints, while citizens and firms face
even more of them, because they face governments with even greater taxing,
borrowing, and inflating power. Classical liberals may wish the change
hadn’t occurred, but it’s indisputable that it has largely negated the public-
private analogy.
As to the third proposition of Keynesian debt theory – that there is
“a sharp and important distinction between an internal and an external
public debt” – Buchanan characterizes it thus: “The public economy, the
government, has within its accounting limits both the debtors and the
creditors. The debt in such circumstances is a mere financial transaction.
No outside resources are imported and employed when debt is created; no
net reduction in income flow takes place (aside from the frictional effects
of transfer) when interest is paid or the debt is amortized.” But “if the debt
200 The political economy of public debt
The relevant comparison for meaningful debt theory is not between two situa-
tions which are identical in every other respect than debt ownership. Situations
like these could never be present, and could never be constructed except as
isolated and unimportant cases. Some other respects than debt ownership must
be different, and any analysis which overlooks or ignores the other necessary
differences must embody serious error. (Buchanan, 1958, pp. 60–61, original
emphasis)
At the initial moment of choice, three options exist: raise taxes, borrow,
or curtail outlays. A subsidiary option for debt finance is internal versus
external funding. If a spending increase is approved along with debt
finance, and there are no idle savings, internal debt finance will draw from
a fully invested pool of domestic savings while external funding will draw
from a fully invested pool of foreign savings. In Buchanan’s telling, regard-
less of whether the new funding seeds a remunerative public project, “the
creation of the internal public debt will act so as to reduce the community’s
privately employed capital stock by the amount of the loan,” and thus
Public choice and public debt 201
future private income streams will be lower, depending on the rate of return
(p. 61). External debt funding, in contrast, neither reduces nor supplements
domestic privately employed capital stock, so future private income streams
are greater than if a new loan was sourced internally (albeit offset by new
interest payments sent abroad). “The internal and the external debt cannot
legitimately be compared on the assumption of an equivalent gross income
stream,” Buchanan writes. Moreover, “the gross income of the community
in any chosen future time period cannot be thrown into the other respects
which are assumed identical in the two cases and thereby neglected” (p. 62).
Now the choice between internal and external funding is less obvious
than Keynesians assume – and they assume that only external public debt
is burdensome. Buchanan explains why, to the contrary, it’s often more
advantageous (because cheaper) than internal funding:
The community must compare one debt form [external] which allows a higher
income over future time periods but also involves an external drainage from
such income stream with another form [internal] which reduces the dispos-
able income over the future but creates no net claims against such income. The
choice must hinge on some comparison between the rates at which the required
capital sum originally may be borrowed. The choice between the internal and
the external loan should, at this level of comparison, depend upon the relative
[interest] rates at which funds may be secured from the two sources. The com-
munity should be indifferent between the two loan forms if the external bor-
rowing rate is equivalent to the internal borrowing rate. . .[for then] the internal
loan would reduce domestic private investment which would, in turn, reduce the
future income in any one period by an amount indicated by the magnitude of
the loan multiplied by the internal rate or net yield on capital, which is assumed
to be the rate at which the government borrows. The external loan would not
cause such a reduction in private investment; income in a future period would be
higher than in the internal loan case by precisely the amount necessary to service
the external loan. Net income after all tax payments and interest receipts are
included will be equivalent in the two cases. . . If the internal or domestic pro-
ductivity of capital investment exceeds the rate at which funds may be borrowed
externally, the community will be better off if it chooses the external loan form.
Net income after all debt service charges are met will be higher than it would
be if the alternative internal public loan were created. . . [Only if] the internal
[or domestic] rate of return on capital investment falls short of the external
borrowing rate [will] the community. . .be worse off with the external than with
the internal loan. Net income of the community after debt service will be lower,
and the external debt will impose a “burden” [only] in a differential sense [not
due, per se, to the necessary exportation of interest expense]. (Buchanan, 1958,
pp. 62–3)
Whereas Keynesians theorize that domestic burdens and risks might exist
only if public debts are owed to foreigners (and there exists no capacity
to service such debts by issuing fiat paper money), Buchanan contends
202 The political economy of public debt
illusion, but unlike new classical and public choice economists (and Mises),
welcome them as expedients and claim that state spending has a “multiplier”
effect. Buchanan accepts the possibility of debt illusion but denies it refutes
his thesis that public debt is deferred taxation (Ferguson, 1964, pp. 150–63;
Buchanan and Roback, 1987). Indeed, he argues, debt illusion facilitates
intergenerational cost-shifting, for if living generations felt the full debt
burden as much as the tax burden they’d resist shouldering it, or try to shift
it. The counter-claim, of course, is that the same people, free of illusion, shift
the debt burden forward precisely because they might feel it presently.
The principle (Barro-type critics would say “false notion”) of “public
debt illusion,” regardless of its validity, marks an inflection point in public
choice research. As we’ve seen, Buchanan (1958) focuses far more on posi-
tive than normative aspects of public debt, and on its incidence (effects)
far more than its causes. But positive analysis is foundational for normative
analysis; it anchors the debate to empirics instead of to arbitrary moral
“intuitions,” and since the debate addresses sovereign debt, it necessitates
plausible theories (and measurements) of the proper role of government
in an advanced credit economy. Thus contemporary studies of public debt
incorporate not merely positive but also normative insights, and analyze
not merely effects but causes, and causes not solely technical or historical
but moral and political too.
If fiscal-monetary illusion exists, is it perpetrated deliberately by
political elites? If so, to what end? Should we displace traditional, ideal-
istic notions of the “public servant” with more realist conceptions, say, of
the utility-maximizing aggrandizing Machiavellian or Leviathan? Public
choice scholars say yes. But what moral code underlies such politics? What
will be the causes and consequences of public credit and public debt in
this more realistic “paradigm?” If, on the contrary, there’s no such thing
as fiscal-monetary illusion – as Barro and new classical economists insist –
what other incidences are discernable? If no one is ever fooled, perhaps the
vast growth in the size and power of government over the past century was
fully preferred by a fully informed electorate. In unrestrained democracy
objections to an ever-expanding state by even a few large minorities are
easily dismissed as electorally irrelevant; any minority – especially if rich –
can be exploited and made to pay for whatever the majority wishes. Not
coincidentally, a minority in major nations over the past century (the rich)
have paid a disproportionately large share of all taxes and have purchased
a relatively larger share of all public debt. To the extent the majority
doesn’t know how much this minority actually pays, or feels that it should
pay more still, it’ll demand a more expansive (and expensive) state; to the
extent the minority resists more burden, state funding will ebb.
In 1966 Alan Greenspan (1926–), subsequently a chairman of the US
204 The political economy of public debt
[U]nder the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an
economy’s stability and balanced growth [and opposition to this system reflects]
the realization that the gold standard is incompatible with chronic deficit spend-
ing (the hallmark of the welfare state), [which is] a mechanism by which govern-
ments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support
a wide variety of welfare schemes. A substantial part of the confiscation is
effected by taxation. But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they
wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and
they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to
borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures
on a large scale. Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy
can support is determined by the economy’s tangible assets, since every credit
instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds
are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government’s promise to pay out
of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets.
A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at
progressively higher interest rates. Thus, government deficit spending under a
gold standard is severely limited. The abandonment of the gold standard made
it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an
unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of
government bonds which – through a complex series of steps – the banks accept
in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the
equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government
bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid
claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding
than real assets [such that the] earnings saved by the productive members of
the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy’s books are finally
balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the
government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the gov-
ernment bonds financed by bank credit expansion. . . Deficit spending is simply
a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious
process. (Greenspan, 1966, pp. 101–7)
[1999]), Buchanan and Wagner launch what they call the “new political
economy of public debt,” echoing Moulton’s 1943 critique of the
Keynesians’ “new philosophy of public debt.” They believe the Keynesian
approach persists only to rationalize and bolster Leviathan. Rules for
balanced budgets and the gold standard are abandoned not because they
fail but because they impede the spread of statism, which a majority
of voters seem to want. “With a balanced-budget rule,” Buchanan and
Wagner observe, “any proposal for expenditure must be coupled with a
proposal for taxation.” “Elimination of this rule altered the institutional
constraints within which democratic politics operated,” with the result
that “two subtly interrelated biases were introduced: a bias toward larger
government and a bias toward inflation.” Keynesianism blazed a path
for activist policymaking; political elites accepted it not because it was
economically valid but politically expedient. The ideas rationalized prefer-
ences for amassing and exercising power; they diminished suspicion about
deficit spending and debt accumulation. The policies were packaged as
safe, dependable fiscal “tools,” effective in fixing supposed market defects
like saving gluts, production gluts, and jobless gluts.
In the pre-Keynesian era, operating by “old” (classical) fiscal rules,
politicians who resorted to peacetime deficit spending were reviled as
irresponsible cranks deserving ousting; in the Keynesian paradigm they are
saviors and humanitarians deserving re-election. Buchanan and Wagner
(1977 [1999]) incorporate a perennial “vote motive” in their account of
fiscal trends but stress also that absent the right ideas, right policies do
not follow, and can’t gain popular support. The solution is both ideational
and institutional: Keynesian debt theories and policies must be refuted
for the danger they pose and the harm they inflict. To help politicians tie
their own hands, fiscally, Americans should convene to adopt a balanced
budget amendment to the US Constitution. But if balance isn’t wanted at
the operational level, why would it be wanted at the constitutional level?
The political economy “turn” in the public choice of public debt is
unmistakable in Buchanan and Wagner (1977 [1999]). Compared to
Buchanan (1958), they devote far less space to positive analysis and
much more to cultural-political-institutional factors. In their chapter on
“Keynesian Economics in Democratic Politics,” they write:
Has the teaching of Keynesian economics had this effect? The question is at
least worthy of consideration. We might all agree that something has gone
wrong. The record of deficits, inflation, and growing government is available
for observation. We must try to understand why this has happened before we
can begin to seek improvement. Our central thesis is that the results we see can
be traced directly to the conversion of political decision makers, and the public
at large, to the Keynesian theory of economic policy. At a preliminary and
common-sense level of discussion, the effects of Keynesian economics on the
democratic politics of budgetary choice seem simple and straightforward. . .
Elected politicians enjoy spending public monies on projects that yield some
demonstrable benefits to their constituents. They do not enjoy imposing taxes
on these same constituents. The pre-Keynesian norm of budget balance served
to constrain spending proclivities so as to keep governmental outlays roughly
within the revenue limits generated by taxes. The Keynesian destruction of this
norm, without an adequate replacement, effectively removed the constraint.
Predictably, politicians responded by increasing spending more than tax rev-
enues, by creating budget deficits as a normal course of events. (Buchanan and
Wagner, 1977 [1999], p. 95)
The fiscal context known to Buchanan and Wagner in 1977 doesn’t seem
to corroborate their theme, at least at first glance. By then Keynes’s General
Theory (1936) was 40 years old, its notions dominated most textbooks,
and most policymakers identified as Keynesian. From 1936 to 1977 the
United States ran budget deficits 75 percent of the time and borrowed
10 percent of its total outlays; yet by 1977 its leverage (public debt/GDP)
was only 35 percent, down from 40 percent in 1936 and well below the peak
of 121 percent in 1946. In contrast, over the four decades prior to 1936
the United States ran budget deficits 50 percent of the time and borrowed
27 percent of outlays, as public leverage jumped from 8 percent (1896) to
40 percent (1936). Thus the four decades after the Keynesian “revolution”
(1936) saw less deficit spending (10 percent of outlays) and a diminishing
public debt burden (leverage dropped from 40 percent to 35 percent), while
the four decades before it witnessed more deficit spending (27 percent of
outlays) and an increasing debt burden (leverage quintupled to 40 percent).
Of course, from 1896 to 1936 the US fiscal state was burdened by three
wars and a depression. Still, the Keynesianism “revolution” doesn’t seem
so influential, according to this brief empirical comparison. Instead of
Keynesianism causing the political- economic trend it may have only
reflected it.
On second glance, however, a crucial monetary aspect to the context
of 1977 corroborates Buchanan and Wagner’s theme, an aspect pertinent
to Keynesian policy prescriptions that explains the benign trend in US
public leverage between 1936 (40 percent) and 1976 (35 percent). Keynes
and his acolytes have been long-time critics of the gold standard and
consequently happy to see it abandoned in three major steps over the past
Public choice and public debt 207
century (1914, 1933, and 1971). By now it’s well understood that fiat paper
money and unanticipated inflation can “erode” the real value and burden
of public debt (Aizenman and Marion, 2011). Buchanan and Wagner
are alert to this phenomenon in their 1977 book; a section titled “Budget
Deficits Financed by Money Creation” examines inflation’s power to dis-
sipate and erode large portions of a public debt burden. By inflating, the
sovereign defaults implicitly (indirectly) in contrast to defaulting explicitly
(directly, by non-payment of interest and principal); public debt thereby is
made to seem less costly than it is, because its costs are so widely diffused
among bondholders and moneyholders alike.
In any nationalistic monetary system of fiat paper money (versus the
traditional internationalist system of gold-based money), sovereigns can
create purchasing media ex nihilo, virtually without limit, and debase
the value of their money, which manifests as price inflation. If unan-
ticipated, inflation erodes the value of public debt, which benefits the
debtor (state) at the expense of the creditor (bondholder). When a nation’s
biggest debtor is also its biggest inflator, the obvious conflict of interest
can be significant. Among the many ways sovereigns extract resources
from the private sector, inflation is the most indirect, as Keynes famously
observed. Of course, sovereigns don’t portray inflation to their citizens
as a form of tax, although it is; they attribute it to non-state actors and
events (profit-hungry firms, greedy unions, oil cartels, poor harvests). If
the effects of inflationary finance on public perception were similar to
the effects of taxes, there’d be no point adopting the policy. If inflation is
a “hidden tax” the policy is politically tempting precisely because it is so
deceptive (Buchanan and Wagner, 1977 [1999], p. 114). If politicians can
easily spend beyond means, needn’t balance budgets, and yet suffer no
electoral harm, they’ll persist in the activity; if inflation results they can be
quite sure the price setters (business) instead of the money issuers (central
bankers) will be blamed.
A brief empirical review helps convey the power of inflation to erode
public debt and inflict implicit, serial defaults on bondholders. Consider
that in the four decades between the appearance of Keynes’s General
Theory (1936) and Buchanan and Wagner’s Democracy in Deficit (1977)
the US consumer price index increased 345 percent, nearly triple the
increase recorded in the prior four decades (+116 percent, 1896–1936).
Nominal GDP in the United States grew 24-fold from 1936 to 1977, but
only five-fold from 1896 to 1936. In absolute terms, nominal US public
debt increased 21-fold from 1936 ($34 billion) to 1977 ($706 billion), yet
declined relative to nominal GDP, due to rapid inflation. Thus the real
value of US debt increased only five-fold from 1936 to 1977. Public debt
increased, but public leverage declined – due mainly to inflation. Likewise,
208 The political economy of public debt
from 1977 to 2015 US nominal public debt increased 23-fold, but only
eight-fold in real terms. Regardless of how high and fast public debt accu-
mulates, so long as inflation boosts nominal GDP (the denominator in the
public leverage ratio) by more, public leverage can be contained.
Obviously, inflation and default involve not just economic but moral
principles. Most public choice theorists consider normative elements
of public finance, along with economic ideas and political institutions,
to be causal, but it’s not a mainstream view. In “The Moral Dimension
of Debt Financing” (1985) Buchanan chastises economists for having
“almost totally neglected moral and ethical elements of the behavior that
has generated the observed modern regime of continuing and accelerating
government budget deficits,” and because “moral principles affect choice
constraints,” this “neglect is inexcusable.” Buchanan believes “the explosive
increases in debt or deficit financing of public consumption outlays can
be explained, at least in part, by an erosion of previously existing moral
constraints,” those he elsewhere dubs “Victorian precepts” ( prudence, par-
simony, budget balancing) and which Keynes, as “moral revolutionary,”
sought to jettison by resort to “allegedly rational arguments for fiscal-
monetary debauchery.” Unfortunately Buchanan also indicts an innocent
motive for productive behavior: “rational self-interest.” In the political
realm this motive supposedly makes officials myopically opportunistic
and fiscally imprudent, always inclined to seek “non-tax sources of public
revenues.” Buchanan says balanced budgets were “formerly dictated by
[Victorian] moral standards,” but they gave way to caprice and officials
jettisoned rules in favor of discretion: thereafter they’d do whatever they
wanted whenever they wished. A possible remedy is a balanced budget
amendment to the US Constitution, which Buchanan champions, but
its enactment is elusive, for it too is a rule; in a post-Victorian world it is
actively opposed by the champions of discretion. Nevertheless, studies of
the moral aspects of public finance and public debt persist.6
Is there a moral case for public debt default? The notion of “odious”
debt has a long lineage and seeks to justify default if a new political
regime replaces an old one that was corrupt and a deadbeat (Stiglitz,
2003; Jayachandran and Kremer, 2006). Ecclesiastics and socialists alike
consider default moral, for they believe creditors at root are immoral,
whether operating as “usurers,” debt “masters” or “parasites.” In truth
most creditors are moral, productive actors who deserve to have their
contracts and rights protected. This is the Hamiltonian view.
We’ve seen how Buchanan believes in a “moral dimension” for debt
finance and that Keynesian notions are not only economically inefficient
and harmful to credit–debtor relations but in many cases morally dubious,
especially the resort to surreptitious methods of inflationary finance. Yet
Public choice and public debt 209
believes future generations are unfairly ruined by public debt, because they
are treated as a common resource; against their consent (because not yet
born), they’re forced to bear extra (tax) burdens the moment profligate
ancestors borrow. There is “a tragedy of the fiscal commons.” People are
exploited as fiscal chattel; real capital is dissipated; and living standards
are jeopardized. The problem isn’t public debt per se but unrestrained
democracy: the system with few (if any) constitutional limits on govern-
ment power. A plausible rebuttal to Wagner’s critique is the fact that
the average duration of public securities in recent decades has been five
years, while the longest maturity has been 30 years; each is well within
the definition of a generation. As such, it seems a logical stretch to clas-
sify public debt as an exploitation of “future generations.” Within living
generations there’s certainly much fiscal exploitation of some groups (the
rich, rentiers) by others (the non-rich), but all such groups are living and
comprised of (mostly) consenting adults. The concern should be to pre-
clude any sacrifice of the living, not to prevent harm to the unborn or to
some amorphous “posterity.”
Despite the astute insights of public choice scholars on public debt, much
remains unclear. According to Munger (2004) public choice explains why
“the tendency to use [public] debt rather than taxes to finance current gov-
ernment activities is predictable and preventable,” but alas, also “politically
irrepressible.” Most politicians and economists believe “[budget] deficits
and large accumulations of debt are benign,” while voters allegedly fearful
of national debt nonetheless prefer a policy mix of high spending and low
taxes – that is, chronic deficit spending and perpetual debt build-ups:
We have [a] problem with our understanding of deficits. . . What are the actual
impacts of deficits, economically and politically? What will be the impact of the
end of the brief period of surpluses [1998–2001] in the US federal budget?. . .
[W]e don’t know very much about deficits, in the direct “X causes Y” way nec-
essary for policy analysts to advise leaders effectively. While it may be true that
deficits might “eventually” have important real macroeconomic effects, their
short and intermediate term effects are hard to predict. There is something we
do know, however, and the failure to communicate it effectively to the public,
and to policy makers, represents an important failure of academic economists.
The tendency to use debt rather than taxes to finance current government
activities is predictable and preventable, but it seems politically irrepressible. . .
Deficits are not something like earthquakes or floods, the natural conse-
quence of random or deterministic process. Instead, deficits are the aggregate
Public choice and public debt 213
NOTES
1. On caricatures of self-interest and their influence on public choice theory, see Salsman
(2015b).
2. Wagner (1992, 2012a, 2012c), Brubaker (1997), Wrede (1999), Jakee and Turner (2002),
and Raudla (2010).
3. Starting in early 1942 the Fed pledged to keep the ten-year US Treasury bond yield near
3 percent. Although federal debt increased nine-fold between 1941 and 1946, the bond
yield averaged just 2.4 percent. In the five years after the accord terminated in 1951
(Hetzel and Leach, 2001), when the debt didn’t grow, the ten-year yield increased to an
average of 3.1 percent. The Fed materially increased its Treasury holdings during the
accord period but also offloaded a lot to banks, where Treasury securities increased from
22 to 56 percent of assets between 1941 and 1945.
4. Ferguson (1964), Buchanan and Wagner (1977 [1999]), Buchanan et al. (1987), Balkan
and Greene (1990), Holcombe (1996), Jakee and Turner (2002), Munger (2004), Wagner
(2007), Cullis and Jones (2009), Brennan (2012), and Wagner (2012a).
5. See also Blewett (1981), Wagner (1976), Congleton (2001), and Da Empoli (2002).
216 The political economy of public debt
6. Patterson (1955), Holcombe (1998), Borna and Mantripragada (1989), Boadway (2002),
Wittman (2002), McGee (2007), Noy (2008), Painter (2009), Alvey (2011), and Friedman
(2013).
7. Cited in Eichengreen and Lindert (1989, p. 19).
8. For more of Buchanan’s views on public debt, see Buchanan (1959, 1967b [1987], 2000),
Buchanan et al. (1987), Buchanan and Musgrave (1999), Templeton (2007), and Wagner
(2014).
5. The limits of public debt
Having assessed theories of public debt advanced over the past three cen-
turies by classical, Keynesian, and public choice scholars, I turn next to
questions concerning the sustainability and ultimate limits of public debt.
How much can a government safely, affordably, and productively borrow?
How does it best cultivate public credit, that is, its capacity to borrow?
Why, when, and how do governments default, and to what effect? Is default
sometimes justifiable? What explains the recent rapid growth in public debt
as well as the unfunded contingent liabilities related to “entitlement” and
“safety net” schemes,1 including pledges to bail out firms deemed “too big
to fail?”2
The distinct strains of pessimism, optimism, and realism among public
debt theorists regarding the origins, effects, and morals of public debt
extend to questions of sustainability and limits. I contend that the realist
interpretation is the most persuasive and most corroborated by fiscal facts;
it’s also best positioned to explain the limits of public debt, because it
incorporates a more relevant political economy context.
The sustainability of public debt is a sovereign’s capacity to borrow
prudently and affordably so as to optimally provide necessary and proper
public goods (infrastructure) and services (police, courts of justice, national
defense), without sacrificing its sovereignty or the rights, liberties, and
prosperity of citizens. Valid assessment of sustainability requires more
than mere metrics; the use and abuse of public debt differs by regime type:
constitutionally limited republics outperform both autocracies and democ-
racies, which are each unconstrained, thus prone to fiscal profligacy and
mistreatment of creditors.
The literature on the limits of public debt investigates such concepts as
“fiscal sustainability,”3 “fiscal space,”4 “fiscal limits,”5 “fiscal dominance,”6
“fiscal fatigue,”7 “debt intolerance,”8 and “debt overhangs.”9 In addition
there are a growing number of studies of public debt restructurings and
defaults,10 facilitated by new databases.11 Many theorists understandably
conceive limits as an optimization problem, so just as the Laffer curve posits
an optimal tax rate that maximizes sovereign tax revenues, so t heorists posit
a “debt Laffer curve” of optimal public leverage; o ptimization necessar-
ily implies a goal (or “objective function”), and whether it be to minimize
217
218 The political economy of public debt
Until recently the distinction between public credit and public debt
appeared infrequently in the literature, although Lutz (1947) is an excep-
tion. Analysts typically focus on outstanding debt, which is tangible and
(usually) measurable, whereas public credit is more opaque, although
crucial, as it pertains to borrowing capacity. In private credit markets
lenders typically establish a “line of credit” based on a borrower’s cred-
ibility, income, net worth, and collateral. Nothing equivalent or so con-
crete exists in public markets. But this doesn’t mean limits to public debt
don’t exist; a long historical litany of public debt restructuring and default
provides ample evidence that they do.
Unlike private creditors, public creditors have imprecise estimates of
public credit and thus can’t easily specify a “capacity utilization rate” for
public debt. It’s easy enough to measure public debt as a percentage of
national income (GDP), what I call “public leverage.” Its main advantage
is simplicity and international comparability. But not all sovereigns report
their debt or GDP accurately. More problematic still, even in advanced
nations sovereigns have contingent liabilities that are many multiples of
their outstanding bonds, yet very difficult to measure precisely; these
fiscal manifestations of burgeoning welfare states simply didn’t exist in
the century of faster economic growth and lower public leverage before
World War I. Of course, attempts to limit explicit public leverage can be
more than offset by expansions of contingent public leverage. Bonds and
entitlements alike are obligations; each enjoys broad electoral support in
unrestrained democracies because they appear not to involve a material
tax burden. Yet just as explicit public debt is but deferred taxation, so
contingent public liabilities are deferred borrowing – hence also deferred
The limits of public debt 219
taxation; what sovereigns leave unfunded today they must fund eventually
(when cash is due to eligible beneficiaries). States can default on c ontingent
liabilities as much as on bonds, of course, but less conspicuously.
Further complicating accurate assessment of public debt limits is the
fact the nations differ in taxable capacities, depending on their tax codes,
the willingness of their citizens actually to pay taxes (by choosing to work,
or spend, more or less), and rates of compliance. Suppose a nation called
“Reckless” has a public leverage (public debt/GDP) of 100 that’s twice
that of another (at 50 percent) named “Prudence.” Which nation’s debt
is less sustainable? Suppose each year Reckless routinely extracts half
of national income in tax revenues while Prudence extracts only a tenth.
The public debt of Reckless is more sustainable, all else equal, despite its
higher leverage, because its debt is only twice its annual tax revenues, while
the debt of Prudent is quintuple its tax revenues. Reckless doesn’t look so
reckless, while Prudence is far less prudent than a surface view s uggests.
The public debt/GDP metric is better than none but the public debt/
revenue ratio better measures fiscal sustainability. With such refinements
the complexities of debt dynamics multiply. Professional bond- rating
agencies try to build rigorous, proprietary models of debt sustainability,
but they rarely anticipate public debt crises, defaults, or recoveries,13 and
unfortunately there exist no long or comprehensive data series on tax
revenues.
The metaphor of a line of credit is helpful yet not strictly applicable
to today’s public debtor. First, states are unique in that they alone wield
a legal monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a certain territory. A
separate question is how states exercise their power and for what purposes.
Second, the power of most states has expanded enormously over the
past century compared to the previous century. By now most sovereigns
exercise nearly unlimited power to tax, spend, regulate, wage war, issue
bonds, create money, redistribute income, renege on public debt and, by
the principle of sovereign immunity,14 skirt bankruptcy courts and avoid
penalties for tortious acts. This fundamental transformation in state power,
we’ll see, is crucial to properly analyzing the modern limits of public debt.
Recall that in the 1940s Lerner developed an influential approach
to deficit spending and public debt called “functional finance.” Unlike
Keynes or Hansen, from whom he drew, Lerner was unabashed in his
advocacy of virtually unlimited deficit spending, debt issuance, inflation,
and wage-price control. As he put it, “functional finance rejects completely
the traditional doctrines of ‘sound finance’ and the principle of trying to
balance the budget.” For Lerner “the size of the national debt is relatively
unimportant” and interest expense “is not a burden on the nation,” so
a state “cannot be made ‘bankrupt’ by internally held debt.” Indeed, he
220 The political economy of public debt
Theorizing about the limits of public credit (debt capacity) is more art
than science. Early efforts by Wright (1940) and Hansen (1941, p. 136)
showed that the United Kingdom safely borrowed more than 200 percent
of GDP in 1818 and more than 150 percent of GDP in 1923. There was no
national ruin. Today Japan has the highest public debt/GDP ratio among
advanced nations (226 percent) even though recent studies (Reinhart and
Rogoff, 2009) suggest a 90 percent ratio as the upper limit beyond which
advanced nations begin to risk default and slow growth, and a still lower
ratio (60 percent) for less developed nations (LDCs). Perhaps Japan isn’t
ruined, but without doubt it has stagnated economically for decades. As
a prerequisite for adopting the euro in 1999, the Maastricht Treaty of
1992 required would-be European members to cap their public debt and
annual deficits at 60 percent and 3 percent of GDP, respectively; many
The limits of public debt 221
members have since flouted those rules and consequently have stagnated
and defaulted. In 1940 Wright was one of the first to question the view that
there was no effective limit to sovereign borrowing:
(1987), synthesizing such factors as the sum of debt, its growth, the
economy’s growth, the ratio of public debt to national income, the prevail-
ing interest rate, and interest expense on the debt as a share not only of
public spending but also of the annual budget deficit:
So long as the rate of increase in interest-bearing public debt exceeds the rate
of economic growth, the interest charges on the public debt as a share of total
product must increase. Either total public outlay must increase as share of total
product or interest charges as a share of total budgetary totals must increase.
At some point, the annual interest charge will come to equal and then exceed
the annual deficit. Once this critical threshold is passed, the simple economics
of default come into play. If government is unable to borrow funds that are suf-
ficient to meet annual interest charges on accumulated debt, default on existing
obligations will allow current rates of spending on goods, services and transfers
to increase and/or current rates of taxation to decrease. At this juncture, it is
apparently to the short-run self-interest of citizens, as taxpayers-beneficiaries,
to default on existing public debt, either directly through explicit repudiation or
indirectly through inflation. (Buchanan, 1987, pp. 361–2)
Buchanan sees that if public debt grows faster than the economy then
public leverage (public debt/GDP) must rise, and if there’s no offset-
ting decline in the interest rate on public debt then interest expense also
must rise relative to GDP. Interest expense is also a budget outlay, and
non-discretionary if a sovereign’s bonds are to be credible. The danger is
that interest expense grows relative to total public spending. The “critical
threshold,” for Buchanan, is where annual interest expense on public debt
equals the annual budget deficit: the state borrows not merely to rollover
or repay maturing principal but borrows anew just to pay interest on its past
borrowing. The debt burden can multiply quickly. Conditions worsen if
interest expense exceeds the annual deficit, for then “the simple economics
of default come into play,” as “the government is unable to borrow funds
that are sufficient to meet annual interest charges on accumulated debt.”
Assessing the “critical threshold” for the United States in fiscal year 2015,
we see federal debt carried at an average interest rate of 2.73 percent and
interest expense at $450 billion, compared to a budget deficit of $438 billion.
The US national debt now totals $19 trillion. To exceed Buchanan’s “ critical
threshold” the “annual interest charge” must “come to equal and then
exceed the annual deficit.” Indeed, interest expense on US public debt in
2015 ($450 billion) is slightly larger than the deficit ($438 billion). Is the
US thereby in fiscal danger? Its deficit was substantially larger in 2009
($1.4 trillion), when interest expense wasn’t much different than it was in
2015. By Buchanan’s calculus the United States was in less fiscal danger
in 2009 despite a deficit three times as large as in 2015. It seems odd that
a larger budget deficit could less jeopardize debt service capacity than a
The limits of public debt 223
smaller one simply because it dwarfs interest expense. Were the US deficit a
mere tenth of its current size (say $44 billion) it would be far below interest
expense; but why would that necessarily spell trouble for debt service? By
Buchanan’s calculus it would.
Buchanan’s algebra seeks to quantify the risk of a “debt spiral,” in which
large debts sink by the inexorable law of compounding interest. If a debtor
must borrow merely to pay interest on past borrowings, it pays interest on
interest and is less likely to emerge whole from its deepening debt hole. The
“magic” of compounding interest for creditors is a curse for overleveraged
debtors. Initially fiscal decay is slow and default risk low; soon each is swift
and severe. In Hemingway’s The Sun Also Rises someone is asked, “How
did you go bankrupt?” Answer: “Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”
Buchanan’s novel approach has since been elaborated, debated, and
revised by various algebraic analyses of public debt dynamics.15 The
basic algebraic truth is that any particular public debt/GDP ratio (public
leverage) is stabilized only if the interest rate on public debt equals the
growth rate in GDP, in a context of budget balance. If instead there’s a
primary budget deficit – that is, a deficit after deducting interest expense –
public leverage will rise unless the interest rate is less than GDP growth.
This assumes that an existing public debt/GDP ratio is already sustainable
and merely to be stabilized. To reduce public leverage amid a primary
deficit, the interest rate must be substantially below the GDP growth
rate. In a world of high public leverage, low inflation, slow GDP growth,
and an unwillingness by politicians to achieve a primary budget balance
(or surplus), it’s obvious why policymakers would try hard to depress
public bond yields. The zero-interest-rate policies (ZIRPs) of central banks
in recent years supposedly seek to maximize demand, but surely they also
try to minimize public interest expense.
Rising public debt in recent decades has prompted studies of the
political-economic causes of debt accumulation,16 optimal levels of public
debt,17 the aftermath of excessive public leverage (“overhangs”),18 and the
causes of defaults.19 Below I explain how this research promotes a better
understanding of the limits of public debt.
In Barro’s model (1979) public debt is incurred innocently by “tax
smoothing” over the business cycle, a passive approach that avoids fre-
quent, disruptive and procyclical shifts in tax policy. Instead of meeting
cyclical deficits (from recessions) with tax increases or spending cuts
(which might depress the economy), and instead of meeting cyclical budget
surpluses (from expansions) with tax cuts and spending increases (which
might stimulate the economy), policymakers simply allow deficits and
surpluses to run their course. They borrow to plug deficits in downturns
but repay with surpluses in upturns. Debt accumulates only in emergencies
224 The political economy of public debt
(like war); there’s no chronic deficit spending over the cycle. “A central
proposition is that deficits are varied in order to maintain expected con-
stancy in tax rates.” “Debt issue would be invariant with the outstanding
debt-income ratio” and also “with the level of government spending”
(Barro, 1979).
In a more sophisticated model of a “Leviathan” state, Brennan and
Buchanan (1980, pp. 103–12) see government as “intent on maximizing
not the public good but its net revenues,” be it permanently (“perpetual
Leviathan”) or occasionally (“probabilistic Leviathan”). Borrowing is
deferred taxation but because it “provides a means for Leviathan to
allocate desired revenue use inter-temporally, its major importance stems
from the fact that [it] offers an additional revenue source in its own right.”
In this model Leviathan’s debts “must be honored,” else creditors will stay
away. Moreover, “the total amount that a government can borrow may be
constrained in three ways: (1) by the ability of the government to service
and redeem the debt – that is, the future revenue capacity assigned to gov-
ernment defined by its constitutionally allowable taxing powers; (2) by the
relative preferences of individuals as between government bonds and other
assets; and (3) by the general extent to which individuals wish to postpone
current consumption (and acquire assets)” (pp. 103–5).
Of course, “the power to create bonds is futile unless government also
has the power to tax,” for “the power to borrow in itself assigns to govern-
ment no power that is not already embodied in the assigned revenue instru-
ments to which it has access.” In essence, “the power to borrow permits
government [to] appropriate now, in some current period, rather than later,
the capitalized value of the future revenue streams.” Whereas borrowing
by a perpetual Leviathan (autocracy) shifts the timing but not the level of
outlays, the case is “dramatically different under probabilistic Leviathan
(democracy),” because there “the power to borrow implies that the
revenue-maximizing government, finding itself in office and not anticipat-
ing to remain, may, by means of borrowing, appropriate to itself the full
value of tax revenues in all future periods, including those in which such
a Leviathan is no longer operative.” In short, “the power to borrow effec-
tively transforms the ‘probabilistic Leviathan’ into ‘perpetual Leviathan’
from the standpoint of the taxpayer” (p. 104). In effect, democracy gives
way to autocracy. To the extent that other bonds compete with public
bonds, the state “may find it necessary to pay higher and higher rates,” such
that “future [tax] revenue may be exhausted before all private assets are
replaced by [public] bonds” (p. 105). Finally, “limits are set on the ability of
government to sell bonds by the maximum level of the community’s capital
formation,” for “government cannot acquire more from” the saver than his
level of savings in the current period – assuming bond purchasing remains
The limits of public debt 225
voluntary. Individuals may not fully discount into the present the higher
future tax bills associated with higher future debts, so they’ll provide more
savings to the state today, so it can borrow more than it otherwise might.
External funds also expand borrowing capacity. Ultimately, “the limits [to
public borrowing] are those imposed by the full capitalized value of future-
period tax revenues,” plus current tax revenues.
For Brennan and Buchanan (1980), the more fiscally credible a state,
the more it can borrow, and from a greater variety of sources. If so, “the
‘burden of debt’ can be much larger under external than under internal
debt, because more debt will be issued in the former case.” Absent any
strict “constitutional constraints on the ability to borrow externally,”
Leviathan’s debts become excessive and risky to bondholders. This analysis
“tends to reinforce classical precepts that limit government resort to this
revenue-raising instrument to periods of demonstrable fiscal emergency,”
and “if the citizen-taxpayer, at the constitutional stage of decision, projects
only the possibility that a revenue-maximizing Leviathan may emerge,”
then “rational choice should dictate a preference for quite severe con-
straints on the governmental power either to levy taxes on capital or to
create public debt” (p. 108). A state’s “power to create money” constitutes
its third revenue source, for “money is rather like a form of debt,” but
free money, for it “needs to pay no interest on its implicit loan.” Indeed,
“the value to [Leviathan] of a perpetual interest-free debt is equal to the
principal – the real value of the money stock itself ” (pp. 111–12). By print-
ing money without the strictures of a gold standard, any state can dissipate
much of the real value of its debt (Brennan and Buchanan, 1981).
Cukierman and Meltzer (1989) argue that public debt is driven by
popular demands for wealth redistribution, both intragenerationally and
intergenerationally. Privately, of course, no one can legally impose net
debts (negative estates) on others, including heirs; public debt arises, they
contend, when free riders on government services try to forward a negative
worth (public) estate to posterity. “The existence of a positive national debt
is directly traceable to the existence of a sufficient number of individuals
who desire to leave negative bequests but are prohibited [under law] from
doing so,” they explain. “By voting for [government] deficits, they increase
their consumption, crowding out capital.” The more people are “bequest
constrained” (less wealthy, thus less likely to bequeath positive estates),
the more they’ll vote for debt-financed (versus tax-financed) spending.
Beneficiaries include those earning lower wages today plus “those with
low wages relative to the wages expected by the next generation.” They
“will try to tax future wealth,” meaning: vote for borrowing now and leave
repayment to subsequent generations (pp. 730–31).
Of course, the boosting of public debt needn’t be partisan. In some cases
226 The political economy of public debt
enough tax revenue to service its debt. Thus the assumption that investors
impose an upper limit on the size of government debt is reasonable” (p. 7).
Likewise, Smyth and Hsing (1995) ask “whether an optimal [public] debt
ratio exists that will maximize [real] economic growth.” They find real US
GDP growth determined by public leverage and by growth rates, respec-
tively, in employment, capital services, and money supply. The optimal
public debt/GDP ratio is 49 percent for gross (total) debt and 38 percent
for net debt (gross debt less that held by government trust funds and
agencies). Higher ratios retard future economic growth rates. In contrast,
Aiyagari and McGrattan (1998) believe that “concerns regarding the high
level of [public] debt in the US economy” are “misplaced.” Despite the US
public debt/GDP ratio in 1998 (64 percent) being double the ratio in 1980,
no worries are warranted. Any “welfare gains” from an “optimum quantity
of [public] debt” are too small to justify a harsh scheme of fiscal austerity.
The problem is that in the long run public debt crowds out private savings,
curbs capital formation, and distorts employment. In this model “the
optimum quantity of debt will be high if debt is effective in smoothing out
consumption over the lifetime of an individual” but “low if debt crowds
out capital and therefore lowers consumption” or “if the incentive effects
of higher distortionary taxes are important.” They estimate “the optimum
quantity of debt” to be “equal to the average public debt/GDP ratio for the
US over the post-WWII period,” or 54 percent (p. 461). But their simple
average masks a wide range during this period, from a low of 32 percent in
1974 to a high of 121 percent in 1946.
Although difficult to imagine in today’s climate of anxiety (mostly
popular) about high and rising public debt, in 2000 analysts worried about
its decline and disappearance. The worry was best captured in a report
titled “Life After Debt” (US Department of the Treasury, 2000; see also
Reinhart and Sack, 2000; Kestenbaum, 2011), prompted by the United
States registering budget surpluses (1998–2001) for the first time since
1969. This led some economists to predict an end to US public debt (due
to full repayment) by 2012; debate ensued about whether it would be good,
bad, or innocuous for the economy and those conducting monetary policy
with US debt.22 By 2001 the debate was moot: deficit spending resumed
due to recession and war spending after the terrorist attacks. Instead of
US debt plunging from $5.7 trillion in 2000 (55 percent of GDP) to zero
by 2012, it tripled to $16.4 trillion (102 percent of GDP). In 2000, Reinhart
had worried about the negative “economic consequences of a disappear-
ing government debt” (Reinhart and Sack, 2000) but by 2012 was worry-
ing about the negative economic consequences of excessive public debt
(Reinhart et al., 2012). Pessimists worry about public debt regardless of
context; optimists, of course, are similarly biased.
The limits of public debt 231
The fact that the markets seem nowhere near forcing adjustment on most
advanced economies can hardly be construed as proof that rising debts are risk-
less. Indeed, the evidence generally suggests that the response of interest rates to
debt is highly non-linear. Thus, an apparently benign market environment can
darken quite suddenly as a country approaches its debt ceiling. Even the U.S. is
likely to face a relatively sudden fiscal adjustment at some point if it does not
put its fiscal house in order. (Rogoff, 2010)
By “debt ceiling” Rogoff refers not to the statutory US debt limit that’s
become a periodic source of partisan brinksmanship, but to the theoretical
90 percent “ceiling” he and Reinhart infer from their empirical work. In
August 2011 the leverage-yield paradox intensified in ways that were seem-
ingly inexplicable in a Reinhart-Rogoff model: amid Congressional wran-
gling over the statutory debt limit and a rising risk that the US Treasury
might be precluded from new borrowing for a while, Standard & Poor’s
for the first time stripped US Treasury bonds of their highest possible
rating (AAA), reducing it a notch. One might suspect that a lower rating,
implying higher risk, would make bondholders demand higher yields, yet
US bond yields plunged and bond prices skyrocketed during the episode,
The limits of public debt 233
and a year later (August 2012) when the public debt/GDP ratio was even
higher (105 percent), the ten-year US Treasury bond yield was even lower
(1.70 percent). Rogoff foresees a “sudden fiscal adjustment” – presumably,
a sky-rocketing US bond yield – “at some point,” but the point is that such
a point is rarely, if ever, actually pinpointed in the literature.
Important to analyses of debt sustainability is the concept of an
“overhang,” where public leverage is so high that it exceeds an optimal
level.24 The danger is that most fiscal “austerity” schemes enacted to fix the
problem depress GDP growth to rates below that necessary to service the
debt. Officials may try to cut debt, but if their policies cut GDP by as much
or more, public leverage (public debt/GDP) remains unchanged or rises.
Whereas the studies presented in Reinhart and Rogoff (2009) and in
Reinhart and Rogoff (2010) are restricted to exploring contemporaneously
correlations between a nation’s public debt/GDP ratio and its history of
default and economic growth, Reinhart and Rogoff (2010) try to demon-
strate how abnormally high public debt/GDP ratios (more than 60 percent
for LDCs and more than 90 percent for advanced nations) tend to presage
multiple years of economic stagnation. This theme, with additional
evidence, is developed in Reinhart et al. (2012), where “debt overhang” for
advanced nations is defined as public leverage above 90 percent. Twenty-six
overhangs since 1800 “are associated with lower [economic] growth than
during other periods” when leverage was below 90 percent. Moreover, 80
percent of the overhangs lasted more than a decade; they weren’t due to
recessions and during such episodes interest rates weren’t always higher, yet
there was a “massive,” “cumulative shortfall in output.” Understandably,
the authors fear “the growth-reducing effects of high public debt.”25
In none of their works do Reinhart and Rogoff consider possible
causes of the empirical link which they say exists between high public debt/
GDP ratios and economic stagnation (or default), whether contemporane-
ous or lagged. Theirs is mainly an empirical-historical exercise. But three
reasonable hypotheses can be offered. First, economic stagnation may
result from the higher interest rates that often accompany higher public
leverage. Second, public interest expense may so increase as to require less
spending on law and order or on productivity-enhancing public infrastruc-
ture. Finally, policymakers often try to narrow deficits by growth-curbing
“austerity” schemes – mainly by higher taxes.
As of 2015 one can find three large economies overseen by sovereigns with
public leverage above 90 percent (debt “overhang”): Japan (250 percent),
the United States (106 percent), and United Kingdom (92 percent). Japan
has suffered “lost decades” since its economy and equities peaked in 1990.
Its public leverage first exceeded 90 percent in 1995 and since then its real
GDP has grown at a compounded rate of only 0.7 percent per year, versus
234 The political economy of public debt
3.7 percent per year in the prior two decades (1975–95), when its leverage
averaged only 60 percent. Were the United States and United Kingdom to
share Japan’s fiscal fate over the next two decades, while Japan stagnated
further, the combined global output loss would be considerable.
The Reinhart- Rogoff studies of public debt are path- breaking, but
constructive criticism is warranted. First, correlation is not causation,
and even if some “overhang” causation is discernable, a reverse of the
thesis is possible. A rising public debt/GDP ratio may have less to do with
higher public borrowing (the numerator) than with lower growth (the
denominator); instead of higher leverage slowing economic growth, slower
economic growth (and accompanying deficits) could be raising public
leverage. Second, the studies don’t incorporate leverage in the private
(and especially financial) sector, nor discuss how easily private debts can
become contingent public liabilities due to the bailouts that are now the
norm in crises (Munger and Salsman, 2013). Third, the studies omit meas-
ures or discussions of the large, off-balance-sheet obligations associated
with unfunded (or underfunded) entitlement programs, even though these
dwarf the size of public debts in the form of bonds. Finally, results for
some nations lack the requisite robustness: as one example, Reinhart and
Rogoff (2009) include 216 data points for the United States, but only 11
of them (5 percent) involve a public debt/GDP ratio lying near or above
the supposedly crucial threshold of 90 percent. Consequently their key
warning, that high public debt is “associated” with lower economic growth
over many years and even, perhaps, with secular stagnation, as in Japan –
based as it is on experience in 65 other nations over two centuries – may not
legitimately extend to the United States.
The Reinhart and Rogoff studies also ignore taxable capacity. They
presume that national income (nominal GDP, the denominator in lever-
age ratios) is a fully accessible source of funds for public debt service. In
truth, tax revenues are the only practical (and direct) source of funds and
different nations tend to wrest quite different tax shares from their respec-
tive national incomes. As explained above, a sovereign within a higher
public debt/GDP ratio may be less financially precarious than one with a
lower public debt/GDP ratio, if it’s able to extract a greater share of taxes
from GDP. These analytic shortcomings aren’t unimportant, but a greater
problem is that Reinhart-Rogoff studies generally ignore the changing
role of monetary regimes. To their credit, they document a long and
dishonorable litany of currency devaluation and debasement, but don’t
explain how unanticipated inflations have relieved profligate sovereigns
from having to take unpopular steps to reduce their real debt burdens and
avoid explicit debt defaults. This is precisely what’s needed to resolve the
paradoxes they cite. The problem is not that Reinhart and Rogoff don’t
The limits of public debt 235
Having examined theories of the origin and optimality of public debt and
leverage, as well as of the prolonged stagnation that can result from debt
“overhangs” (excessive leverage), I next examine theories of the causes and
consequences of defaults of various types. Viewed broadly, default entails
an overextended debtor unable to pay principal or interest in full when
due, while repudiation entails a debtor unwilling to pay despite having a
capacity to pay. In the past, overindebted sovereigns have defaulted three
main ways (1) explicitly, by non-payment of interest or principal when due,
(2) partially, by a restructuring that extends due dates and reduces interest
and principal, and (3) implicitly, by a debasement of the currency in which
its debts are denominated. I examine studies of each default method after
a brief review of default history.
During Latin America’s sovereign debt crises in the early 1980s Eaton
and Gersovitz (1981) assessed debt default and repudiation using game
theory, with rival players (debtors and creditors), strategies, reputational
risks, costs, and payoffs. They tried to explain how LDCs could default
repeatedly over the years yet still attract lenders. “A crucial characteristic
of [LDC] borrowing is the absence of explicit penalties for non-payment,”
they note; lenders can neither appeal to a court nor seize collateral.
Repudiators “face future exclusion from capital markets,” but not per-
manently. Lenders “will establish a credit ceiling above which they will be
unwilling to increase loans” based on their “perception of borrowers’ disu-
tility of exclusion.” If a credit limit lies below what a borrower seeks, it is
rationed (p. 304). This model situates debt capacity in “a set of observable
borrower characteristics,” mainly export revenues; it also assumes that
“one particular attribute of all [public] borrowers is that they are inherently
dishonest, in that they will default if it is to their benefit.” Loans are still
made because the sovereign borrower, unlike an individual, “optimizes
236 The political economy of public debt
(2003) estimated that public debt defaults were much more likely when
nations had external debts greater than 50 percent of GDP. Reinhart and
Rogoff say a safe threshold is less than half that.
The importance of institutional structures and incentives (for good or
ill) in the pattern of “serial defaulters” is stressed by Kohlscheen (2007).
He counts presidential democracies five times more likely to default on
their external debts than parliamentary democracies; the difference “lies
in their constitutions.” Venezuela and Mexico defaulted on their external
debts on nine separate occasions over 180 years, but the same decades
saw no such defaults by India, Malaysia, or Thailand. He believes that
parliamentary democracies default less because the ever-present risk of
a “no confidence” vote ensures responsible fiscal incumbency. There’s
“a credible link between economic policies and the executive’s survival”
that “tends to strengthen the repayment commitment,” even though
“politicians are opportunistic.” In contrast, presidential democracies give
executives fixed terms regardless of performance and without periodic leg-
islative approval; thus executives can be irresponsible about public debts.
Kohlscheen’s conclusion contradicts earlier findings that defaults are more
likely in systems of proportional representation with unstable coalition
governments lacking a political capacity (or will) to act consistently and
responsibly, including in the servicing of public debts.
Besides explicit default and partial default there’s the possibility of
implicit default, whereby an overleveraged sovereign inflicts on creditors
(and the economy at large) a high and unanticipated inflation; the decline
in the purchasing power of money “erodes” the value of public debt and
cuts the market value of public bonds (Aizenman and Marion, 2011).
To be “effective” the inflation must be unexpected, a negative surprise to
bondholders who fail to command the higher yields necessary to offset
depreciated principal. Inflation also reduces the public debt/GDP ratio
(public leverage) merely by boosting the denominator (nominal GDP). The
power to erode a public debt burden is stressed by Irons and Bivens (2010)
in rebutting forecasts by Reinhart and Rogoff (2009) of dire results from
high leverage after the Great Recession of 2007–09.
Monetary debasement is a type of sovereign default, although most
economists today dismiss the interpretation as nostalgia. Since 1700 a dozen
or so major cases of dramatic, one-time currency defaults have occurred,
as when Britain, the United States or France left the gold standard, or
remained on it but after a material devaluation (with a currency’s gold
content reduced). Since the last abandonment of any currency links
to gold in 1971, implicit debt default by debasement has occurred not
by one- time acts but by perpetual inflations (“inflationary finance”).
Official debasement to cut the value of public debt wasn’t unknown to
The limits of public debt 239
the classical economists; they wrote in the context of the gold standard,
but reneging on that standard and on public debts wasn’t uncommon.
Recall Smith (1776 [1937]) deriding the mere “pretended payment” on a
public debt “when national debts have once been accumulated to a certain
degree” by “the raising of the denomination of the coin,” an “expedient
by which a real public bankruptcy has been disguised.” For Smith infla-
tion is “pernicious,” an “adulteration” of money, an “unjust” “juggling
trick” (Smith 1776 [1937], pp. 882–5). Reinhart and Rogoff concur but,
whereas they believe explicit default is more likely than implicit default,
Smith believes the reverse, that the “usual expedient” is default by inflation
(monetary debasement). Keynes, we’ve seen, agrees that inflation can sur-
reptitiously erode the value of money and debts, indeed that it’s a “usual
expedient,” but also one that he heartily endorses.
Keynes is smart enough to realize how inflation can erode debt burden
and cynical enough also to suspect the common man doesn’t realize it
very well; but instead of opposing the tactic he condones it, because sov-
ereigns usually can get away with it (electorally) and because creditors
are overpaid anyway. Recall in the General Theory (1936) his antipathy
towards bondholders, the “rentiers.” They’re unproductive, idle, and unde-
serving of their interest income; he endorses a policy of depressed interest
rates, to near zero – like the ZIRPs that major central banks have adopted
since 2008 – to achieve “the euthanasia of the rentier” class (Keynes,
1936, p. 376). A sovereign that debases money and erodes the real value of
its debt isn’t violating a trust or contract but “moderating the claims of
the rentier” (bondholder), and justifiably if its debt is at “an insupportable
level,” which he defines as “an excessive portion of the national income”
(Keynes, 1923, p. 64). Keynes cites no public leverage threshold beyond
which default invariably results, but by inflating, a state, he says, is merely
“reducing the burden of its preexisting liabilities in so far as they have been
fixed in terms of money.”
The political economy literature contains abundant analysis of
“inflationary finance.” For centuries public finance scholars have known
that in addition to taxing and borrowing, sovereigns could secure real
resources by creating money ex nihilo, whether by printing press or
electronic entry. Some of the earliest, important contributions are made
by Seligman (1921), who provides a history of currency inflation and
how it affects public debt, and by Clark (1945), who writes amid the high
inflation and fast-rising public debts of World War II. More sophisticated
treatments arrive later, from Bailey (1956), Friedman (1971), Auernheimer
(1974), and Barro (1983), who are critical of inflationary finance, although
not of central banking or of fiat paper money. After the abandonment of
the Bretton Woods gold exchange standard in 1971 inflationary finance
240 The political economy of public debt
becomes more overt and obvious. Thus appear studies like Ruebling
(1975), which notes that to the extent private banks participate in money
creation (through deposit creation) they too (like the state) profit by it.
Toma (1982) finds an “inflationary bias” in central banking itself. Barro
(1983) explores the degree to which inflationary finance occurs under
systems of monetary “discretion” (post-1971) versus “rules” (pre-1971).
Grossman and Van Huyck (1986) portray it as sovereign predation.
Mankiw (1987) examines how states might secure an “optimal collection
of seigniorage,” a theme buttressed by Calvo (1989), who asks how infla-
tion might “liquidate” bill and bond values when they already incorporate
inflation expectations. The last major contribution comes from Neumann
(1992) but thereafter the literature on inflationary finance diminishes,
because US budget deficits dwindle along with inflation rates; worries
about excessive public debt and inflation fade. With the reprise of massive
deficit spending since 2008, of vast expansions in central banks’ money-
creating powers, and of various bond-buying schemes (debt monetization),
a revival of inflationary finance studies is more likely.
The fact that implicit (inflationary) defaults on public debt are easier to
inflict than explicit ones, coupled with the fact that inflation itself is easier
to inflict in the absence of a gold standard (or another viable constraint
on state monetary power), means sovereigns are encouraged to borrow
more than they otherwise might. But while the contemporary monetary
system fosters public indebtedness, it also provides an efficient means of
surreptitiously melting it. This may explain why persistently high public
leverage has predominated since 1971; since then governments have been
empowered and motivated to default implicitly. Since then some sovereigns
(Hong Kong, China, Argentina) have tried to fix or “peg” their currencies
to others, particularly more stable and trusted reserve currencies, but
without surrendering their power to create their own money, if necessary
by altering or terminating pegs; not coincidentally, they’ve borrowed less.
Some public debt scholars contend that sovereigns worry about public
creditors being robbed by inflation. The public choice approach is rightly
skeptical of the claim; as long as a sovereign benefits by implicitly default-
ing, as when it’s overleveraged or when it’s less costly than explicit default,
it’ll do it. Of course, sovereigns in recent decades also have introduced and
sold inflation-indexed bonds, which protect holders from the corrosive
power of inflation by accreting principal at the official inflation rate. Falcetti
and Missale (2002) provide an informative account, while Dornbusch and
Simonsen (1983) explain their use as guides in monetary policymaking. By
design, yields on inflation-indexed public bonds are lower than those on
nominal (unindexed) public bonds, because the inflation premium built
into nominal bonds by investors is removed from an indexed bond. So why
The limits of public debt 241
It is a sobering fact that the prominence of central banks in this century has
coincided with a general tendency towards more inflation, not less. [I]f the over-
riding objective is price stability, we did better with the nineteenth-century gold
standard and passive central banks, with currency boards, or even with “free
banking.” The truly unique power of a central bank, after all, is the power to
create money, and ultimately the power to create is the power to destroy. (Cited
in the foreword to Deane and Pringle, 1995)
latter decade the demand for dollars outpaced growth in the supply of
them. Likewise for US bonds, lesser rates of increase in supply sometimes
accompany declines in their price (increases in yield), while in other cases
larger increases in supply have brought increases in price (lower yields). In
the first case the new bond supply is moderate but demand weaker still; in
the latter case bond supply skyrockets but demand for the bonds more so.
For example, US federal debt increased only 30 percent in the 1960s and
public leverage (public debt/GDP) dropped from 53 percent to 35 percent,
yet the price of the ten-year Treasury bond plunged 27 percent as its yield
jumped from 4.12 percent (1960) to 7.35 percent (1970). In contrast, US
federal debt skyrocketed from $8.2 trillion in 2005 to $19.0 trillion in 2015
and leverage increased from 62 percent to 105 percent, yet the price of the
ten-year Treasury bond also skyrocketed, by 93 percent, as its yield fell
from 4.29 percent (2005) to just 2.14 percent (2015). In the first case a mod-
erate rise in bond supply was met by a diminished demand for it, so bond
prices declined and yields rose; in the second case, despite a big increase in
bond supply, a larger demand for it raised bond prices and lowered yields.
The strength of demand that accompanies a reserve currency and the
public bonds it denominates often only intensifies in financial crises.
Investors flee less trusted currencies and less creditworthy sovereign bonds
and seek greater liquidity; a “flight to safety” accompanies greater demand
for higher-quality public bonds denominated in the reserve currency. This
explains the paradox that in crises, even as budget deficits are widening
and public debt/GDP ratios are soaring, bond prices rise and yields
decline for certain sovereigns – specifically, those that enjoy an exorbitant
monetary privilege.
Under the classical gold standard (1870–1913), gold itself, not fiat paper
currency, was the monetary reserve for the world’s 60 redeemable c urrencies.
Some scholars liken the regime to one with a “Good Housekeeping Seal
of Approval” (Bordo and Rockoff, 1996). Others extend the argument to
insist that a credible currency can’t be issued by mere fiat but only under
exogenous, rules-based constraints (Dove, 2012), which may include a gold
standard (Selgin and White, 2005). A sovereign signals its commitment to
good-faith dealing with holders of its currency and bonds by pledging to
redeem them on demand in a fixed weight of gold; ex ante, it promises not
to break its debt contract by debasing its money. Commitment was sounder
under the classical gold coin standard of 1870–1913 than under the gold
bullion standard manipulated by central banks during and after World
War I (Obstfeld and Taylor, 2003). The United States defaulted on its gold-
redeemable dollar and gold-based bonds in 1933 and since then “the power
of governments in general to debase their currencies is firmly established,”
and “an important part of that power is the ability to prevent private agents
The limits of public debt 245
from taking action to insulate themselves from the effects of such policy”
(Green, 1986, p. 14).
A century ago, on the precipice of World War I, the UK pound was
the world’s most trusted currency, due partly to London’s large role in the
financial system, but mostly to the fact that over the prior two centuries
(excepting 1797–1821) the pound was indubitably redeemable in gold. For
a century the United Kingdom enjoyed an “exorbitant privilege,” but in
the century after World War I the pound’s reserve status was gradually dis-
placed by the US dollar; its reserve status was hurt most when Britain went
off the gold standard in 1931. In the Bretton Woods system (1948–71) only
the US dollar was defined as a fixed weight of gold (at 1/35th of an ounce)
and only non-US central banks (not individuals) could redeem dollars for
gold. Most foreign central banks (except the Bank of France) refrained
from doing so, choosing instead to invest dollars in US debt securities.
Today the US dollar retains its reserve currency status as a vestige of
the prior system, but it now comprises only 65 percent of central bank
reserves. The fact that no currency in the world since 1971 has had any
formal tie to gold hasn’t negated the principle of “exorbitant privilege.” In
the century through 1914 the privilege was Britain’s; in the past century the
United States has held (and exploited) the privilege; the coming century
may see China play this role. Ironically, although reserve currency status is
earned by decades of monetary integrity and fiscal rectitude, once attained
it’s often politically exploited through inflationary finance; it then loses
its status to any rival sovereign that can develop a global reputation for
monetary integrity and fiscal rectitude.
A second important principle of public debt sustainability holds that
a sovereign guards against default by borrowing only in its own currency.
Stated negatively, no sovereign should commit the “original sin” of
borrowing in the currency of another sovereign – of pledging to repay its
debts in a medium it has no power to print.28 As long as a government
issues an irredeemable fiat paper currency it can service any debt it incurs,
no matter how large, and as long as it’s denominated in the currency
it alone issues. To service its debts it needn’t cut spending, raise taxes,
narrow deficits, or reduce its leverage; it need only print (or create elec-
tronically) what it needs. It’s not a moral or even practical course, merely an
expediency common to lawless, often reckless issuers of fiat money.
The principle of “exorbitant privilege” applies to a single sovereign
issuer of a reserve currency advantaged because it enjoys lower rates of
inflation and interest; but the principle of “original sin” applies to all sov-
ereigns, regardless of their currency status. The fact that most sovereigns
tend to borrow in their own currency doesn’t guarantee that they’ll be able
to borrow at low rates; a currency less trusted will be less demanded and
246 The political economy of public debt
thereby lose value; and if so, its bonds, denominated in that currency, will
also lose value. That central banks can radically reduce public bond values
by raising interest rates or inflicting unanticipated inflation means they
can lighten a state’s debt burden; and as discussed, “inflationary finance”
entails an implicit debt default.
Reinhart and Rogoff’s findings on public debt are misleading to the
extent that they omit the complicating role of contemporary money
(Reinhart, 2009; Reinhart et al., 2012). Both exist on a continuum: (1) fiat
money – non- interest-
bearing means of payment that serves as bank
reserves, issued jointly by a central bank; (2) treasury bills – short-term,
lower-interest-bearing sovereign obligations of the sovereign; (3) treasury
notes – medium- term moderate- interest-bearing sovereign obligations;
(4) treasury bonds – long-term higher-interest-bearing sovereign obligations;
and (5) entitlements – long-term, non-interest-bearing political promises of
benefits, in the future, to pensioners, patients, the disabled, bondholders
of failed firms, or depositors of failed banks. The first sovereign obliga-
tion, currency, can be issued without limit (since 1971), a factor neglected
by Reinhart and Rogoff. In seeking to explain two centuries of public debt
defaults of every variety and context, they insist that the key measure is
the public debt/GDP ratio, regardless of taxable capacity or the monetary
regime. First, they concede that higher leverage needn’t coincide with higher
default risk. Second, they don’t explain why the default-inducing threshold
is 60 percent leverage for less developed nations and 90 percent leverage for
advanced nations. Third, they don’t explain why so many defaults occur
with low leverage nations and so few with high leverage nations; fourth,
they don’t distinguish debt defaults under the gold standard, when mon-
etary discretion is restrained, versus those under a pegged fiat currency,
or under a fiat currency that fluctuates against others; they exclude cases
where “exorbitant privilege” and “original sin” pertain.
A sovereign with hands tied monetarily lacks discretion and might
default despite low leverage, while one with full discretion to create money
can survive high leverage, especially if it enjoys exorbitant privilege and
doesn’t borrow in a currency it can’t print. Thus the United States over
the past decade has become more leveraged at ever lower interest rates; in
contrast, Greece has defaulted frequently due not just to high leverage but
also because in 1999 it jettisoned its drachma, joined the euro, and couldn’t
immunize itself from global crises. Greece’s public leverage was stable at
roughly 110 percent from 1994 to 2008 before jumping to 130 percent in
2010 and 177 percent by 2015 and its bond yield jumped from 4 percent
in 2009 to 44 percent in 2012, before it defaulted; when Greece borrowed in
drachma from 1971 to 1990 it didn’t explicitly default, although it repeat-
edly debased its currency (an implicit default). While on the gold standard
The limits of public debt 247
Greece defaulted periodically due less to high leverage and more to its
monetary limits.
Significantly, Reinhart and Rogoff’s database of defaults contains no
cases of sovereigns defaulting explicitly when they borrow only in their
own currency. The case doesn’t arise because it simply needn’t; there’s
no political advantage in it. Implicit default by inflation is easier, less
visible, and typically uncontroversial. The policy isn’t moral or practical
(in the long run) but there’s no question it’s politically advantageous, for
in unrestrained democracies politicians prefer implicit defaults and most
economists encourage them in this, believing inflation to be indispensable
to a growing economy. Most cases of default in Reinhart and Rogoff’s
studies occur not because a sovereign is heavily leveraged but because it
doesn’t issue a reserve currency, or lacks monetary latitude, or borrows
in another’s currency. Likewise, to the extent that less developed nations
have higher default rates it’s not because they’re more leveraged or rely
more on externally held than internally held debt, as Reinhart and Rogoff
imply, but because the money they owe isn’t the money they sow. Disputes
about how best to measure debt burden or default risk are relevant to
policymaking, but the presumption that only public leverage matters, or
that leverage above 90 percent must cause crises or stagnation can elicit
tax-oriented austerity schemes that make matters (and leverage) worse.
Next consider what I call “the paradox of public profligacy,” where
increasingly leveraged sovereigns, presumably riskier credits, nevertheless
pay ever-lower interest rates (see Chapter 1, Table 1.3: “The paradox of
profligacy: higher public debt leverage, yet lower borrowing rates, G-7
nations, 1980–2015”). The pattern is the reverse of what prevails in private
credit markets and rebuts the classical school’s premise of an analogy
between public and private debtors. One implausible thesis says there’s
no paradox because there’s no real debt crisis (Yglesias, 2012); another
asserts that public creditors are suddenly “uninterested in getting their
money back” (Varoufakis, 2016). Perhaps higher-leveraged sovereigns with
lower borrowing costs aren’t truly profligate; and if presumably rational,
egoistic creditors don’t require a high interest rate, perhaps the debtor,
however leveraged, isn’t so risky after all. Public debt pessimists must be
wrong; they miss crucial mitigating factors. On the other hand if highly
leveraged sovereigns should be paying higher interest rates but aren’t, due
to “financial repression” or “unorthodox” central bank schemes to depress
yields (including ZIRPs and public debt buying), then debt optimists are
wrong; they ignore latent profligacy and believe that policy artificiality can
mask reality with impunity.
At some point, debt pessimists might say, artificially low public bond
yields will rise to reflect excessive debt, unsustainable leverage, or pending
248 The political economy of public debt
default; if so, bond prices will plunge and many financial institutions
would become insolvent, because they too are highly leveraged and own
large sums of public debt. Few of them could survive a sharp decline in
net worth from a public bond meltdown. Worse, the largest, most widely
held public debts – those of the United States and Japan – may be the
most overpriced (with excessively low yields); their decline would have a
widespread negative impact. The magnitude of financial destruction could
surpass that of 2007–09, because the public debt market is so much larger
than that of mortgage-backed securities. Moreover, most governments
now pledge ex ante to subsidize or bail out banks deemed “too big to fail.”
Sovereigns would become even more leveraged and spread more ruin.
There’s value in comprehending the paradox of profligacy; it may be
true in some respects but not in others. Self-interested creditors require
riskier borrowers to pay more than safer ones; the profligate pay more than
the frugal, because creditors must be compensated for default risk. If, as
the classical school insists, public and private debtors are analogous, they
should be paying roughly the same interest rates, adjusted for leverage and
risk profile. They don’t. On the classical view, either private debtors are
paying too much, public debtors are paying too little, or both. Whereas the
new classical school might insist the yield differential is rationally based,
Keynesians might say it reflects the stupendous benefits of a growing
public debt, while the public choice school might argue that it reflects the
political advantages enjoyed (and exploited) by a democratic, constitution-
ally unrestrained sovereign (whether by its taxing power, fiat paper money
monopoly, exorbitant privilege, or resort to financial repression).
We’ve seen some theorists consult sovereign bond yields as a sign of
whether public leverage is safe and sustainable or whether instead it
crowds out private savings and borrowing. Recall how J.S. Mill, writing
in the mid-nineteenth century, sought an objective measure of excessive
public debt and suggested the bond yield; if it wasn’t rising alongside an
increase in public debt issuance, no one could say the increase was exces-
sive or harmful. Likewise, De Viti De Marco looked to the sovereign
yield as indicative of the upper limit on leverage. “The higher the rate of
interest promised by the state,” he wrote, “the more available [the] savings
it withdraws from industry and commerce, with resulting disadvantages
similar to those produced by excessive rates of extraordinary taxation”
(1936, p. 389). If, in borrowing more, the sovereign pays only the prevailing
market rate, or less, there’s likely no additional burden or crowding out.
By such accounts most sovereigns in recent decades can’t be described
objectively as having overborrowed.
Indisputably, highly leveraged sovereigns today can borrow at
inordinately low rates. Of greater relevance, however, is the fact that today’s
The limits of public debt 249
norm is for public sector bonds to yield less than private sector bonds. It
hasn’t always been the norm: in the nineteenth century, sovereigns even of
advanced nations paid relatively higher interest rates than private sector
borrowers. The “positive yield spread” of contemporary times was once a
“negative yield spread.” What changed – and was it change for the better?
The reversal of the public-private yield differential may be attribut-
able to the distinct fiscal-monetary regimes prevailing in each era. In
the nineteenth century, when the taxing and money- creating powers
of most sovereigns weren’t as yet so extensive as they’d become in the
twentieth century, perhaps public creditors looked like private debtors.
If in the n ineteenth century the sovereign’s revenues came mainly from
tariffs and excise taxes, and not as yet from taxes also on incomes, estates,
capital gains, payrolls, property, or retail sales, as became the norm in the
twentieth century, and if tax revenues then comprised less than 10 percent
of GDP, the nineteenth- century sovereign couldn’t establish sufficient
command over resources to mark it a superior (let alone “risk-free”) credit.
Yet this considers the fiscal regime only. The prevailing monetary regime
can further explain a negative yield spread, when sovereigns borrow at
higher rates than the private sector. If in the nineteenth century a sovereign
operated by politics-free rules of the game of the classical gold standard,
as did 60 nations from 1870 to 1913, it restricted its capacity to create
money; in principle, this is the status of the usually law-abiding private
borrower barred from counterfeiting. As a final factor, the private sector
in the nineteenth century was less burdened by taxation or regulation; with
more autonomy and income, private debtors could be more creditworthy
– more so even than the state, which was more limited (constitutionally,
fiscally, and monetarily).
Given vast growth in the size, scope, taxing power, monetary power,
regulatory power, and takings power of twenty-first-century sovereigns,
and the extent to which such powers are used to limit, burden, and decapi-
talize productive elements of the private sector, it shouldn’t be surprising
that sovereign bonds today yield less than private bonds. Should the
pattern ever re-emerge that the private sector borrows more cheaply than
does the public sector, it may indicate a healthy renewal of economic vigor.
Inflationary finance is neither the sole result of a deficit spending state nor
of a money-issuing central bank; any state can choose to borrow exclusively
from the private sector, just as its central bank can elect to issue money in
250 The political economy of public debt
exchange only for private sector assets and securities. There needn’t be a
symbiotic relationship between a finance ministry and a central bank; a
central bank might be politically “independent.” In fact this is rare; central
banks exist primarily to accommodate the fiscal needs of states. Goodhart
(1988) documents the origins of major central banks; without exception
they were established not to rectify some “market failure” but to finance
deficit spending states, typically in wartime. In some cases they began as
the nationalized remains of a private bank that had failed because it was
forced to lend to an already overleveraged government. Selgin and White
(1999) contend that it’s no accident that central banks reflect the fiscal
needs of the state; it’s the main reason they exist even today and why
their powers and capacities in service to ever-expanding governments are
periodically enhanced and rarely reduced.
Initially, central banks operated on the gold standard, only as a vestige
of what had been the institutional norm and reputational requirement of
a more private banking system. As sovereigns’ fiscal demands prolifer-
ated, so did their demands for debt monetization, to the point where fiat
money exceeded gold reserves; instead of curbing the excesses, central
banks abandoned the gold standard, leaving holders of once-redeemable
money with paper claims to nothing in particular, but which legal tender
laws compelled them to use and accept in payment of debts. The norm,
then, is not central bank “ independence,” but political dependence. For
much of the past century, unlike the previous one, there’s been a sustained,
symbiotic relationship between the deficit spending sovereign and the fiat
money-issuing central bank (Salsman, 2013a, 2013b). The central bank
underwrites, buys, and sells (makes markets in) the government’s securi-
ties, in alliance with private banks. Inflationary finance is the joint policy
product of a finance ministry and central bank.
In the 1990s economists explored central bank independence partly
because central banks had monetized more public debt than usual after
the 1971 cessation of the gold exchange, partly because some restraints
were desired on the higher inflation rates resulting from 1971, and partly in
response to the break-up of the USSR in 1991 (as former Soviet s atellites
sought advice on disentangling banks from states). Cukierman (1992)
offers an early treatment of the issue, while Havrilesky and Granato (1993)
delineate the institutional attributes of central bank autonomy and its
relation to inflation. Pollard (1993) examines autonomy’s impact on the
economy, while Wagner (1986) and Posen (1993) offer a more skeptical
view, suspecting that even “independent” central banks are biased toward
inflating, for purely political motives.
The economic case for central bank independence – that it more likely
fosters low-inflation prosperity and fiscal rectitude – is often trumped by
The limits of public debt 251
the political case against it, in effect, by a case for central bank depend-
ence. The central bank is made to serve, first and foremost, the fiscal
needs of the state; in turn the state can compel the central bank to do its
bidding – to serve as a lender of last (or even first) resort to the state, on
favorable terms, to monetize state debts, credit funds to its account, and
purchase, at the state’s behest, the bonds or assets of troubled but favored
financial institutions, industrial firms, or foreign allies. The politically
dependent central bank can assist the state in its financing needs by both
quantitative and qualitative (price-based) measures, by money creation
(“debt monetization” and “quantitative easing”) or interest-rate “target-
ing” (keeping short-term interest rates low or near zero, to depress govern-
ment bond yields and lower the overall cost of government borrowing),
or by directly purchasing extant public bonds, to artificially depress their
yields and permit refinancing at lower levels.
The literature on central bank independence shows that economies
perform far better when central banks are truly independent, institutionally
and structurally, and not opportunistically subordinated to a sovereign’s
fiscal needs; yet much of the literature also exposes the impossibility of
genuine independence. Bowles and White (1994) depict how genuine segre-
gation is impossible, yet also inadvisable; they favor “a more a utonomous
but not fully independent central bank.” Beetsma and Bovenberg (1997)
investigate the interaction between public debt policy and monetary policy,
in a European (albeit pre-euro) setting, and find that all works out for the
best, but only “in the absence of political distortions,” and yet such dis-
tortions invariably intrude on monetary policymaking due to the state’s
borrowing needs. There exists a “need to establish the credibility of discre-
tionary monetary policies,” but it can’t be met unless the finance ministry
“restrains debt accumulation,” which it usually can’t. Lohmann (1998) asks
whether “political business cycles” can be avoided by a scheme of central
bank independence, and says “this solution works only if central banks are
not perfect agents of their political principals,” but mostly they are political
agents, so central banks are rarely truly a utonomous. Analytical contradic-
tions abound in such accounts, one might argue, precisely because central
banks by definition can’t be non-political.
Bernhard (1998) seeks what he calls “a political explanation” for global
variation in central bank independence: “politicians will choose an inde-
pendent central bank” if disparate branches of government have disparate
policy preferences, but if instead preferences are homogeneous, a state will
require a dependent central bank. There’s no fixed criterion; autonomy
is prone to political opportunism. Miller (1997) examines the theoretical
difference between the “fiscal authority with access to the channels of
money creation” and one without such access; the first will more likely
252 The political economy of public debt
denominate its debt in the currency issued by the dependent central bank,
even though that also boosts inflation risks; moreover, “the degree of
central bank independence is ultimately determined by the government
and may be viewed as another policy variable,” such that a government
may only feign a commitment to autonomy, so that later it can “take away
the independence of the central bank in order to inflate” away the value of
its public debt. Such cases are but sham independence. The most realistic
accounts of the inescapability of central bank dependence can be found in
Tabellini (1987), Fry (1997, 2007, on “the fiscal abuse of central banks”)
and in Selgin and White (1999).
In contrast to Hamilton’s preferred system of non- political,
non-
monopolistic, national banking with a specie- convertible dollar
(Chapter 2, Section 2.4), since the early 1970s we’ve had an ever-more
democratized system, with dozens of inconvertible, monopolized paper
currencies fluctuating wildly against each other as increasingly indebted
sovereigns become ever more dependent on central banks, the latter now
devoted mainly to underwriting and trading public bonds so as to ensure
artificially low yields. In the past decade the balance sheets of major
central banks have been multiplied and by now contain large sums of
public debt of increasingly dubious quality. Public debt theory has yet
to specify the extent to which these policies might bring a future rise in
inflation (or hyperinflation), and with it, higher public bond yields – or
whether zero interest rates will persist indefinitely and breed secular
stagnation.
NOTES
1. Kotlikoff and Burns (2004), Kotlikoff (2006), and Bova et al. (2016).
2. See Stern and Feldman (2004) and Munger and Salsman (2013).
3. Wilcox (1989), Bohn (1991), Joines (1991), Roubini (2001), Kraay and Nehru (2006),
Huang and Xie (2008), Neck and Sturm (2008), Yakita (2008), Aspromourgos et al.
(2010), Escolano (2010), Moraga and Vidal (2010), Cottarelli and Moghadam (2011),
Contessi (2012), Aso (2013), Carlberg and Hansen (2013), Kopits (2013), E. Tanner
(2013), M.D. Tanner (2015), D’Erasmo et al. (2015), and Fincke and Greiner (2015).
4. Heller (2005), Aizenman et al. (2013), and Ghosh et al. (2013).
5. Wright (1940), Hamilton and Flavin (1986), Hillman (2003), Davies (2011), Bi and
Traum (2012), and Daniel and Shiamptanis (2013).
6. Turner (2011) and Blommestein and Turner (2012).
7. Gale and Auerbach (2013) and Ghosh et al. (2013).
8. Reinhart et al. (2003), Catao and Kapur (2006), and Eichengreen et al. (2007).
9. Krugman (1988), Sachs (1989), Reinhart et al. (2012), Lo and Rogoff (2015), and
Tsuchiya (2015).
10. Kaletsky (1985), Eichengreen and Portes (1986), Grossman and Van Huyck (1988),
Aghion and Bolton (1990), Betker (1998), Aguiar and Gopinath (2006), Sturzenegger
and Zettelmeyer (2006), Kohlscheen (2007), Tomz (2007), Tomz and Wright (2007),
Cuadra and Sapriza (2008), Borensztein and Panizza (2009), Fuentes and Saravia
(2010), Hatchondo and Martinez (2010), Yue (2010), Altman and Rijken (2011),
Celasun and Harms (2011), Greenspan (2010, 2011), Kolb (2011), Yeyati and Panizza
(2011), Bi and Traum (2012), Chatterjee and Eyigungor (2012), Furth (2012),
Mendoza and Yue (2012), Cruces and Trebesch (2013), Elgin and Uras (2013), Stähler
(2013), Tomz and Wright (2013), Arellano and Kocherlakota (2014), Arellano and Bai
(2014), Henderson and Hummel (2014), Schwarcz (2014), and Asonuma and Trebesch
(2016).
11. Reinhart and Rogoff (2009), Das et al. (2012), Enderlein et al. (2012), Oosterlinck
(2013), Beers and Nadeau (2015), and Reinhart et al. (2016).
12. Froot (1989), Anderson and Young (1992), Calvo and Guidotti (1992), Smyth and
Hsing (1995), Turnovsky (1996), Barro (1998, 2003), Heise (2002), Zhang (2003),
Reinhart and Rogoff (2009a), and Mayr (2010).
13. Lee (1993), Cantor and Packer (1996), Bruner and Abdelal (2005), and Gaillard (2012,
2014).
14. Delaume (1989), Lienau (2008, 2014), Lipson (2008), Blackman and Mukhi (2010),
Young (2012), Ryan (2014), Weidemaier (2014) and Weidemaier and Gulati (2015).
The limits of public debt 257
15. Blejer and Cheasty (1991), Meijdam et al. (1996), Frisch (1997), Escolano (2010), Denes
et al. (2013), and Watts (2013).
16. Barro (1979), Brennan and Buchanan (1980), Cukierman and Meltzer (1989), Persson
and Svensson (1989), Alesina and Tabellini (1990a), Alesina and Tabellini (1992),
Alesina and Perotti (1995), Persson and Tabellini (2000), Franzese (2000), and Velasco
(2000).
17. Claessens (1990), Anderson and Young (1992), Smyth and Hsing (1995), Husain (1997),
Aiyagari and McGrattan (1998), Agénor and Aizenman (2005), Mendoza and Ostry
(2008), and Irons and Bivens (2010).
18. Reinhart and Rogoff (2009, 2010, 2011a), and Reinhart et al. (2012).
19. See works on default cited in endnote 10.
20. Alesina and Tabellini (1990a, 1990b), Alesina and Tabellini (1992) and Alesina and
Perotti (1995).
21. In addition to Claessens (1990), see Husain (1997), Agénor and Aizenman (2005)
and Tsuchiya (2015).
22. Reinhart and Sack (2000), Fleming (2000), and Greenspan (2001).
23. Reinhart and Rogoff (2010, 2011a, 2011b) and Reinhart et al. (2012).
24. See Krugman (1988), Sachs (1989), Reinhart et al. (2012), Lo and Rogoff (2015), and
Tsuchiya (2015).
25. Herndon et al. (2014) identify errors in Reinhart and Rogoff (2010) that supposedly
exaggerate the harm done to growth by high leverage, and consequently to wrongly
countenance growth-stunting “fiscal austerity” schemes; after corrections, Reinhart and
Rogoff insist their basic conclusions remain justified.
26. Krugman (1990), Easterly (2002), Edwards (2003), Arslanalp and Henry (2005),
Chauvin and Kraay (2007), Sturzenegger and Zettelmeyer (2007), Gunter et al. (2008),
and Reinhart and Trebesch (2016).
27. See Atkeson (1991), Aizenman and Turnovsky (2002), Stern and Feldman (2004),
Mishkin (2006), McGee (2007), Noy (2008), Toussaint and Millet (2010), Breton et al.
(2012), Friedman (2013), Ryan (2014), Bratis et al. (2015), and Altamura and Zendejas
(2016).
28. Bordo et al. (2003), Eichengreen and Haussmann (2005), and Eichengreen et al. (2007).
29. Arnold (1918), Hook (1918), Mitchell (1918), Pigou (1918), Dalton (1923), and
Eichengreen (1989).
30. Giovannini and De Melo (1993), Alm and Buckley (1998), Reinhart and Sbrancia
(2011), Reinhart et al. (2011), and Reinhart (2012).
Conclusion
I’ve examined public debt history and predominant theories of public
debt over the past three centuries in light of the recent, unprecedented
peacetime expansion of public leverage to levels not seen since World War
II. First I provided empirical context, charting public leverage as far back
as the early 1700s (Chapter 1). Next I examined public debt theory in the
three most influential schools of political economy – classical (Chapter 2),
Keynesian (Chapter 3), and public choice (Chapter 4) – and how various
theories try to explain the cause and evolution of public debt, its economic
and political effects, its intergenerational aspects, the meaning of debt
sustainability, and the conditions under which sovereigns tend to mon-
etize or repudiate their debts. Finally, I explored the limits of public debt
(Chapter 5), including how much debt can be incurred safely, how leverage
can become excessive, plus when (and what type of) defaults are likely. I
further examined the economic-financial aftermath (usually d eleterious)
of high leverage and defaults. I join with the handful of other scholars in
finding the system of unrestrained democracy to be an important cause of
public financial profligacy; yet that system is also the one that most politi-
cal theorists today find most acceptable.
There’s no better time than now for a comprehensive guide to what polit-
ical economy has said on public debt over the centuries and what it has yet
to say, or say well. The developed world in recent years has seen an astound-
ing reversal of fiscal fortune. At the turn of the last century, a decade after
the end of the Cold War and after a decade of decent economic growth,
some governments routinely ran budget surpluses and many seemed to be
in good shape fiscally (Japan being the most notable exception). From 1998
to 2001 the United States itself recorded consecutive years of surpluses,
causing some economists and policymakers to project their continuance
and, in all seriousness, to debate whether a reduction or even an elimination
of outstanding national debt was safe or advisable. At the time (2001) the
US national debt was $6 trillion, or 56 percent of GDP; by 2015 the debt
was $19 trillion and 105 percent of GDP. Like the United States, most sov-
ereigns over the past decade have been registering chronic deficits, and now
expect their indefinite continuance. Central banks, beholden to profligate
sovereigns, now routinely monetize vast public debts and try to cap bond
258
Conclusion 259
genuine rights and liberties – is likely to be more fiscally sound and politi-
cally just, yet rarer too.
NOTES
1. See Fine (1969), Buchanan and Wagner (1977 [1999]), Crain and Ekelund (1978), Balkan
and Greene (1990), Franzese (2000), Fried (2001), Holcombe (2002), Jakee and Turner
(2002), MacDonald (2003), Vissagio (2003), Gillette (2004, 2008), Ferguson (2006),
Browning (2008), Eusepi and Giuriato (2008), Lipson (2008), Bruner (2009), Arezki and
Brückner (2010), Yared (2010), Kane (2012), Roche and McKee (2012), Motha (2012),
Schragger (2012), Wagner (2012a, 2012b), Catrina (2014), Martinez-Vazquez and Winer
(2014), and Mellor (2015).
2. Hamilton (1788 [1962]).
3. Hamilton (1804 [1979]).
APPENDIX
263
Melon, Jean-François (1675–1738) Jefferson, Thomas (1743–1826) Malthus, Robert (1776–1834)
Mundell, Robert (1932–) Marx, Karl (1818–83) Mortimer, Thomas (1730–1810)
Pigou, Arthur C. (1877–1959), pre-1930 Mill, John Stuart (1806–73) Musgrave, Richard (1910–2007)
Steuart, James (1713–1780) Mises, Ludwig von (1881–1973) Pigou, Arthur C. (1887–1959), post-1930
Wright, David McCord (1909–68) Montesquieu, Charles (1689–1755) Samuelson, Paul (1915–2009)
Moulton, Harold (1883–1965)
Piketty, Thomas (1971–)
Postlethwayt, Malachy (1707–67)
Ricardo, David (1772–1823)
Say, Jean-Baptiste (1767–1832)
Smith, Adam (1723–90)
Tocqueville, Alexis de (1805–59)
Wagner, Richard (1941–)
Williams, John H. (1887–1980)
References
Abbas, S.A., N. Belhocine, A. El-Ganainy and M. Horton (2011), “A his-
torical public debt database,” IMF Economic Review, 59(4), 717–42.
Adams, H.C. (1895), Public Debts: An Essay in the Science of Finance,
New York: D. Appleton & Company.
Agénor, P.-R. and J. Aizenman (2005), “Financial sector inefficiencies and
the debt Laffer curve,” International Journal of Finance & Economics,
10(1), 1–13.
Aghion, P. and P. Bolton (1990), “Government debt and risk of default: a
political economic model of the strategic role of debt,” in R. Dornbusch
and M. Draghi (eds), Public Debt Management: Theory and Practice,
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Aguiar, M. and G. Gopinath (2006), “Defaultable debt, interest rates
and the current account,” Journal of International Economics, 69(1),
64–83.
Ahn, I. (2013), “Deconstructing the economy of debt: Karl Marx, Jürgen
Habermas and an ethics of debt,” Trans-Humanities, 6(1), 5–32.
Aiyagari, S.R. and E.R. McGrattan (1998), “The optimum quantity of
debt,” Journal of Monetary Economics, 42(3), 447–69.
Aizenman, J. and N. Marion (2011), “Using inflation to erode the US
public debt,” Journal of Macroeconomics, 33(4), 524–41.
Aizenman, J. and S.J. Turnovsky (2002), “Reserve requirements on sov-
ereign debt in the presence of moral hazard – on debtors or creditors?”
Economic Journal, 112(476), 107–32.
Aizenman, J., M. Hutchison and Y. Jinjarak (2013), “What is the risk
of European sovereign debt defaults? Fiscal space, CDS spreads and
market pricing of risk,” Journal of International Money and Finance,
34(C), 37–59.
Alesina, A. and S. Ardagna (2010), “Large changes in fiscal policy: taxes
versus spending,” in J.R. Brown (ed.), Tax Policy and the Economy,
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Alesina, A. and R. Perotti (1995), “The political economy of budget
deficits,” IMF Staff Papers, 42(1), 1–31.
Alesina, A. and G. Tabellini (1990a), “A positive theory of fiscal deficits
and government debt,” Review of Economic Studies, 57(3), 403–14.
264
References 265
public debts,” and “Of lending upon interest,” in Book XXII of The
Spirit of Laws, 4 vols, London: T. Evans and W. Davis.
Moraga, J.F.-Hu. and J.-P. Vidal (2010), “Fiscal sustainability and public
debt in an endogenous growth model,” Journal of Pension Economics
and Finance, 9(2), 277–302.
Mortimer, T. (1772), The Elements of Commerce, Politics and Finances,
London: Printed for the author.
Motha, S. (2012), “The debt crisis as crisis of democracy,” Law, Culture
and the Humanities, 8(3), 390–97.
Motley, B. (1987), “Ricardo or Keynes: does the government debt affect
consumption?” Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, Economic
Review, No. 1, 47–61.
Moulton, H.G. (1943), The New Philosophy of Public Debt, Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Mueller, R.C. (1997), The Venetian Money Market. Banks, Panics and the
Public Debt, 1200–1500, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Mundell, R.A. (1960), “The public debt, corporate income taxes and the
rate of interest,” Journal of Political Economy, 68(6), 622–6.
Mundell, R.A. (1990), “Debts and deficits in alternative models of
macroeconomics,” Rivista di Politica Economica, 80(7–8), 5–129.
Munger, M.C. (2004), “Economists and fiscal policy advice: a deficit or a
deficiency?” Public Choice, 118(3/4), 235–49.
Munger, M.C. and R.M. Salsman (2013), “Implications of bailouts: is
‘too big to fail’ too big?” Georgetown Journal of Law and Public Policy,
11, 433–56.
Munro, J.H. (2003), “The medieval origins of the financial revolution:
usury, rentes and negotiability,” International History Review, 25(3),
505–62.
Murphy, A.L. (2013), “Demanding ‘credible commitment’: public reac-
tions to the failures of the early financial revolution,” Economic History
Review, 66(1), 178–97.
Musgrave, R.A. (1939), “The nature of budgetary balance and the case for
the capital budget,” American Economic Review, 29(2), 260–71.
Musgrave, R.A. (1959), The Theory of Public Finance: A Study in Political
Economy, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Musgrave, R.A. (1975), “Alvin Hansen,” Challenge, 18(4), 59–60.
National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility (December 2010), The
Moment of Truth: Report of the National Commission on Fiscal
Responsibility and Reform, Washington, DC: The White House, accessed
September 19, 2016 at https://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscal-
commission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf.
290 The political economy of public debt
Ridpath, J.C. (1898), Life and Times of William E. Gladstone, New York:
Peter Fenelon Collier.
Roberts, R.O. (1942), “Ricardo’s theory of public debts,” Economica,
9(35), 257–66.
Roche, D. and B. McKee (2012), Democrisis: Democracy Caused the Debt
Crisis. Will It Survive It? Independent Strategy Publication, accessed
13 September 2016 at http://www.instrategy.com/download/books/
Democrisis.pdf.
Rogoff, K. (2010), “No need for a panicked fiscal surge,” Financial Times,
July 20.
Root, H.L. (1989), “Tying the king’s hands: credible commitments and
royal fiscal policy during the old regime,” Rationality and Society, 1(2),
240–58.
Root, H.L. (1994), The Fountain of Privilege: Political Foundations of
Markets in Old Regime France and England, Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Rosen, H.S. (1997), “The way we were (and are), changes in public finance
and its textbooks,” NBER Working Paper, No. 5972, Cambridge, MA:
National Bureau of Economic Research.
Rosen, H.S. and T. Gayer (2009), Public Finance, 9th edition, McGraw-Hill/
Irwin.
Ross, E.A. (1892), Sinking Funds, Baltimore, MD: Guggenheimer, Weil &
Co.
Roubini, N. (2001), “Debt sustainability: how to assess whether a
country is insolvent,” manuscript, Stern School of Business, New York
University.
Roubini, N. and J.D. Sachs (1989), “Political and economic determi-
nants of budget deficits in industrial democracies,” European Economic
Review, 33(5), 903–38.
Rowley, C.K. (1987), “Classical political economy and the debt issue,”
Chapter 3 in J.M. Buchanan, C.K. Rowley and R.D. Tollison (eds),
Deficits, Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Ruebling, C.E. (1975), “Financing government through monetary expan-
sion and inflation,” Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis, Review, February,
15–23.
Ruml, B. (1946), “Taxes for revenue are obsolete,” American Affairs, 3(1),
35–8.
Ryan, M. (2014), “Sovereign bankruptcy: why now and why not in the
IMF,” Fordham Law Review, 82(5), 2473–520.
Sachs, J.D. (1989), “The debt overhang of developing countries,” in
R. Findlay (ed.), Debt, Stabilization and Development: Essays in Memory
of Carlos F. Diaz-Alejandro, Oxford: Blackwell.
References 295
Salsman, R.M. (1990), Breaking the Banks: Central Banking Problems and
Free Banking Solutions, Great Barrington, MA: American Institute for
Economic Research.
Salsman, R.M. (1995), Gold and Liberty, Great Barrington, MA: American
Institute for Economic Research.
Salsman, R.M. (2013a), “The end of central banking – part I,” The
Objective Standard, 8(1), 13–29.
Salsman, R.M. (2013b), “The end of central banking – part II,” The
Objective Standard, 8(2), 17–45.
Salsman, R.M. (2015a), “Piketty’s rickety assault on capital,” The Objective
Standard, 10(2), 32–52.
Salsman, R.M. (2015b), “Common caricatures of self-interest and their
common source,” Reason Papers, 37(2), 79–107.
Samuels, W.J. (2003), “Carl Dietzel (1829–1884), a pioneering and
unorthodox thinker on public debt and fiscal policy,” Chapter
4 in European Economists of the Early 20th Century: Studies of
Neglected Continental Thinkers of Germany and Italy, Cheltenham,
UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing,
pp. 81–103.
Samuelson, P. (1948), Economics, An Introductory Analysis, New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Savage, J.D. (1992), “Thomas Jefferson’s balanced budget amendment,”
Journal of Law and Politics, 9(1), 1–8.
Sawyer, M. (2013), “What is financialization?” International Journal of
Political Economy, 42(4), 5–18.
Say, J.-B. (1803 [1821]), “Of national debt,” Chapter IX in Book II of A
Treatise on Political Economy, 1st American edition, Philadelphia, PA:
Claxton, Remsen and Haffelfinger.
Schofield, P. and N. Mayhew (2002), Credit and Debt in Medieval England
c.1180–c.1350, Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Schragger, R.C. (2012), “Democracy and debt,” The Yale Law Journal,
121(4), 860–86.
Schwarcz, S.L. (2014), “Rollover risk: ideating a U.S. debt default,” Boston
College Law Review, 55(1), 1–37.
Seater, J.J. (1993), “Ricardian equivalence,” Journal of Economic Literature,
31(10), 142–90.
Selgin, G. and L.H. White (1999), “A fiscal theory of government’s role in
money,” Economic Inquiry, 37(1), 154–65.
Selgin, G. and L.H. White (2005), “Credible currency: a constitutional
perspective,” Constitutional Political Economy, 16(1), 71–83.
Seligman, E.R.A. (1921), Currency Inflation and Public Debts: An Historical
Sketch, New York: Equitable Trust Co. of New York.
296 The political economy of public debt
Watts, M.J. and T.P. Sharpe (2013), “Immutable laws of debt dynamics,”
Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 36(1), 59–84.
Webb, B. and S. Webb (1911), The Prevention of Destitution, London:
Longmans, Green & Co.
Webber, C. and A. Wildavsky (1986), A History of Taxation and Expenditure
in the Western World, New York: Simon & Schuster.
Weidemaier, W.M.C. (2014), “Sovereign immunity and sovereign debt,”
University of Illinois Law Review, 1, 67–113.
Weidemaier, W.M.C. and M. Gulati (2015), “The relevance of law to sov-
ereign debt,” Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 11(7), 395–408.
Weingast, B. (1997), “The political foundations of democracy and the rule
of law,” American Political Science Review, 91(2), 245–63.
West, E.G. (1975), “Public debt burden and cost theory,” Economic
Inquiry, 13(2), 179–90.
Wilcox, D.W. (1989), “The sustainability of government deficits: implica-
tions of the present-value borrowing constraint,” Journal of Money,
Credit and Banking, 21(3), 291–306.
Wilkeson, S. (1865), How Our National Debt May Be a National Blessing:
The Debt is Public Wealth, Political Union, Protection of Industry,
Secure Basis for National Currency, Philadelphia, PA: Jay Cooke and
McLaughlin Brothers.
Williams, J.H. (1941), “Deficit spending,” American Economic Review,
30(5), 52–66.
Winer, S.L. and H. Shibata (eds) (2002), Political Economy and Public
Finance: The Role of Political Economy in the Theory and Practice of
Public Economics, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA:
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Wittman, D.A. (2002), “Normative public finance without guilt: why
normative public finance is positive public finance,” in S.L. Winer
and H. Shibata (eds), Political Economy and Public Finance: The Role
of Political Economy in the Theory and Practice of Public Economics,
Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar
Publishing: pp. 101–10.
Wood, R. (2012), “The case for ‘deficit monetization’ and greater coopera-
tion between central banks and ministries of finance,” VOX, August 18.
Wrede, M. (1999), “Tragedy of the fiscal common? Fiscal stock exter-
nalities in a Leviathan model of federalism,” Public Choice, 101(3–4),
177–93.
Wright, D.M. (1940), “The economic limit and economic burden of an inter-
nally held national debt,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 55(1), 116–29.
Wright, D.M. (1943), “Mr. Ratchford on the burden of a domestic debt:
comment,” American Economic Review, 33(1), 115–19.
302 The political economy of public debt
Wright, R.E. (2002), Hamilton Unbound: Finance and the Creation of the
American Republic, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Wright, R.E. (2008), One Nation Under Debt: Hamilton, Jefferson and the
History of What We Owe, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Wright, R.E. and D.J. Cowen (2006), Financial Founding Fathers: The Men
Who Made America Rich, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Yakita, A. (2008), “Sustainability of public debt, public capital formation
and endogenous growth in an overlapping generations setting,” Journal
of Public Economics, 92(3–4), 897–914.
Yared, P. (2010), “Politicians, taxes and debt,” Review of Economic Studies,
77(2), 806–40.
Yarrow, A.L. (2008), Forgive Us Our Debts: The Intergenerational Dangers
of Fiscal Irresponsibility, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Yeyati, E.L. and U. Panizza (2011), “The elusive costs of sovereign
defaults,” Journal of Development Economics, 94(1), 95–105.
Yglesias, M. (2012), “There is no sovereign debt crisis: most governments
have never been able to borrow so cheaply,” Slate.com, July 25.
Young, E.A. (2012), “Its hour come round at last? State sovereign immu-
nity and the great state debt crisis of the early twenty-first century,”
Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 35(2), 593–622.
Yue, V.Z. (2010), “Sovereign default and debt renegotiation,” Journal of
International Economics, 80(2), 176–87.
Zhang, J. (2003), “Optimal debt, endogenous fertility and human capital
externalities in a model with altruistic bequests,” Journal of Public
Economics, 87(7–8), 1825–35.
Index
“active debt” 129 Hemingway on 223
Adams, H.C. 94–5, 166, 191, 263 Keynes on 104
American Revolution 10, 14–15, 53, Lerner on 219–20
58, 60, 69–70, 74 Lutz on 169
analogy between public and private of monarchs 38
debt Say on 78
Buchanan’s view 131, 193, 196–200 Smith on 56–7, 239
classical school’s view 199, 247–8 Steuart on 48–9
Hansen’s view 128, 130–33 Tocqueville on 83
Keynesians’ view 168–9, 193, 196, in United Kingdom 17, 42–3, 48, 51,
198 78, 82, 90–91
Lerner’s view 135 of United States 10
Lutz’ view 168–9 “barren consumption” 76–7
question of 6 Bastable, C.F. 96
Wright’s view 221 Berkeley, G. 32, 34, 90, 263
Ancient era 12–14, 39, 261 Blackstone, W. 44–5, 90, 263
Aquinas 13 bondholders
Aristotle 13, 210–11 benign optimism of 232
autocracy 6, 15, 210, 220, 224, 255, 260 Buchanan on 193–4, 197–8, 207,
see also dictatorship; Leviathan state 210, 225
capital levy on 79, 145, 189, 252–3
bailouts 138, 143, 234 central banks displacing 236
see also “Too Big to Fail” doctrine Clark on 140
(US) current prevalence 260
balance of trade 14, 46 and debt Laffer curve 229
balanced budget future prospects 255
amendments 7, 205, 208, 215 Hamilton on 59
Buchanan on 208 Hansen on 130, 173
dogma of 125 and implicit default 238
Lutz extolling 163, 171–2 Keynes’ antipathy towards 107–12,
mandates 154, 188 115, 147, 239
norm 31, 96, 165 Lerner on 136–7
rules 205 Lutz on 173–4
unbalanced 171, 182, 188 Marx on 87, 89
Bank of England 26, 68, 81, 113, 146 Mises on 184–5, 189
Bank of the United States (BUS) 68–70 and pessimists and optimists 3–4,
bankruptcy 259
Brennan and Eusepi on 210 Pigou on 100
Buchanan on 197, 199 Piketty’s antipathy towards 144–5
Hamilton on 66, 78 public debt costs diffused among
Hansen on 128, 132 207
303
304 The political economy of public debt
Piketty, T. 9, 40, 90, 130, 134, 144–6, direct democracy suboptimal for 255
263 economic 8–9
Pinto, I. de 32, 45, 49–52, 54, 90, 263 financial revolution causing growth
political dependents, central banks as in 30
249–52 government loans as cause of 71
political regime types 6–7, 226–7 governments borrowing to foster 8
political theories 8, 150, 191, 195, 202, Hamilton on 61, 64–5
258 Harris on 142
populist-progressive era 33, 143 Keynes on 107, 111–14
posterity (future generations) large debt build-ups followed by 85,
after 1688 Revolution 44 95–6
Buchanan on 131–2, 193–6, 198 Lerner on 138
De Viti De Marco on 158 Lutz on 164, 168
governments as prone to Mises on 184
“mortgaging” 39 Moulton on 182
Hamilton on 58, 64–7 national
Hansen on 132–3 Gladstone on 86
Harris on 142 Hume on 41
Jefferson on 72–3 private capital bolstering 56
Keynes on 198 public credit as fatal to 76
Keynesians on 153 schemes undermining 4
Mises on 187 “passive” creditor as crucial to 36–7
Pigou on 100–102 Pigou on 99
public borrowing as burdening 39 Piketty on 144–5
public debt as harming 202, 212–13 public debt holders as making 46
and Ricardian equivalence theorem realist view of 260
31, 158 requiring public frugality 55
Ricardo on 81 resources drawn from private sector
Steuart on 47 diminishing 31
Postlethwayt, M. 45, 58, 263 Ricardo on 80
private debt and public debt, analogy Smith’s views on 55–6
between 6, 128, 130–33, 135, of state standing on precarious
168–9, 193, 196–200, 221, 247–8 footing 47
profligacy and sustainability of public debt 217
fiscal 139, 150, 154, 190, 217, 254, Protestant Reformation 13
256 proto-Keynesians
public 9, 83, 94, 140, 154, 182, 184, freespending 226
247 in Germany 117–18
see also “paradox of profligacy” Hamilton portrayed as 61, 64, 68
progressives 95–6 mercantilists typically cast as 49, 92
property (private) 8–9, 110, 211 public bonds
property rights 7, 9, 110, 163, 211, 214, and autocracy 224
227–8 average duration of 72
prosperity becoming “unfunded” 17
accumulation of debt spurring 41 Buchanan on 198, 209
Buchanan on 131, 210 and central banks 251–2
and central bank independence Clark on 140
250–51 current prevalence 260
claim that public debts deduct from De Viti De Marco on 157, 159
45 and debt Laffer curve 229
314 The political economy of public debt
relation to public debt 5–6, 8, 28, extinguishment 32, 50, 52, 58, 63–7,
175–6, 218 75, 78, 159–60
Say on 76–7 future of 254–6
Smith on 53 gross 23–5, 159, 231
as sound, in United States 15 history
Steuart on 46–8 finance in ancient and medieval
public debt times 12–14
“active” versus “passive” 129 financial revolution and
analogy with private debt 6, 128, Enlightenment 14–17
130–33, 135, 168–9, 193, US debt sustainability 27–8
196–200, 221, 247–8 visual depictions 17–27
build-ups (accumulations) illusion 132, 139, 180, 202–3, 214
classical economists on 30, 41, incidence 32, 90, 153, 191, 195, 198,
52, 84 203, 213–14
De Viti De Marco on 162 internal/domestically-held 6, 45,
electoral bias favoring 254 48–9, 55, 106, 108, 110, 126,
future likelihood of larger 255 135–7, 142, 158–9, 173, 181–2,
Hamilton on 1–2, 5, 65–7, 75 191, 193–4, 197, 199–202, 219,
Hansen advocating 129, 147, 181 221, 225, 231, 247
interventionist states 9 intolerance 217, 231, 237
Keynes on 115, 124 issuance 16, 45, 133, 193, 213, 248
Keynesian theorists on 143, 150, limits
205 capital levies, forced loans and
Lerner advocating 147–8, 181 financial repression 252–3
Lutz on 170 central banks as fiscal enablers
Moulton on 181 and political dependents
Munger on 212–13 249–52
norm since 1930 7–8 debt defaults 235–42
optimists on 4 and dysfunctional finance 218–20
Pigou on 99–100 exorbitant privilege and paradox
public choice theorists on 211, of profligacy 242–9
212–13 literature on 217–18
studies of political-economic metrics for debt sustainability and
causes of 223, 228, 251 overhangs 220–35
of UK and US 85, 90, 96 management 124, 163
burden 1–4, 108, 111, 117–18, 123, metrics 220–35
128, 146, 169, 179, 195–6, monetization 27, 81, 111, 144,
206–7, 238 148–9, 151, 240, 250–51
case for perpetual growth 123–33 neoclassical marginalization of
and constitutionalism 30–33 90–92
crises 10, 144, 219, 228, 234–5, 244, net 6, 73, 159, 176–7, 230
246–7 optimists 3–5, 62, 90, 103–4, 175,
as “deadweight” 117, 120, 129, 218, 230, 247, 259–60, 263
131–2, 174 optimization 217–18
as deferred taxation 31, 155–62, 194, overhangs 220–235
196, 203, 211, 213, 218, 224 pessimists 3–5, 48, 62, 85–6, 90–91,
and dysfunctional finance 218–20 103, 145–6, 168–9, 185, 218,
external/foreign-held 6, 48–9, 103, 230, 247–8, 259–60, 263
135–6, 147, 149, 191, 193, 197, realists 4–5, 10, 37, 48, 90, 103, 129,
199–201, 225, 231, 237–8, 247 150, 259–60, 263
316 The political economy of public debt