Ricardian equivalence

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Ricardian equivalence is an idea that sits at the heart of how governments decide to pay their bills. It asks a deceptively simple question: does it matter whether a government raises taxes today or borrows the money and taxes people later? According to the hypothesis, the answer is no. Rational citizens, the theory holds, will see through the timing trick and save exactly enough today to cover the future tax bill. The result is that government spending changes nothing about total demand in the economy.

  David Ricardo raised this possibility in the early nineteenth century but immediately doubted it. Antonio de Viti de Marco picked it up in the 1890s. Robert J. Barro gave it a formal theoretical foundation in the 1970s. What followed was decades of debate over whether real people actually behave the way the theory assumes they must. The story of Ricardian equivalence is partly about an elegant economic proposition and partly about the stubborn gap between theoretical models and observable human behavior.

• 2. Ricardo's War Bonds

  ›

  In his 1820 essay "Essay on the Funding System," David Ricardo posed a precise numerical problem. A government needs to finance a war. It can raise 20 million pounds in current taxes or issue government bonds with infinite maturity, paying 1 million pounds in annual interest each year financed by future taxes. At an assumed interest rate of 5 percent, Ricardo calculated that both options amount to the same present value. The arithmetic was clean.

  Ricardo then stepped back from his own calculation. He argued that individuals do not actually evaluate their tax obligations this way. People, he believed, take a myopic view of the tax path, focusing on the immediate cut rather than the future bill. The man who first proposed the equivalence between current taxes and government debt financing was also the first to doubt that it described how any real person behaves.

• 3. Barro's Formal Model

  ›

  Robert J. Barro returned to Ricardo's hesitant speculation in 1974, apparently unaware of Ricardo's earlier work and de Viti de Marco's subsequent extensions. Barro built his model on three assumptions. Families act as infinitely lived dynasties because of intergenerational altruism. Capital markets are perfect, meaning everyone can borrow and lend at a single rate. The path of government expenditures is fixed.

  Under those conditions, Barro concluded that families responding to government bond issuance would increase the bequests they leave to their children. The increase would be just large enough to cover the higher taxes needed to retire the bonds. Barro wrote that when the marginal net-wealth effect of government bonds is close to zero, changes in the relative amounts of tax and debt finance for a given level of public expenditure would have no effect on aggregate demand, interest rates, or capital formation. The model became an important contribution to new classical macroeconomics, which is built around the assumption of rational expectations.

  By 1979, Barro had refined his formulation. He stated that shifts between debt and tax finance for a given amount of public expenditure would have no first-order effect on the real interest rate or the volume of private investment. He also noted that Ricardo himself had been skeptical of the proposition Barro was now named alongside.

• 4. The Critics Respond

  ›

  Martin Feldstein moved quickly against Barro's model in 1976. He argued that Barro had ignored economic growth and population growth, and demonstrated that public debt creation depresses savings in a growing economy. In the same journal issue, James M. Buchanan also criticized the model, observing that the underlying question was already an old one in public finance theory, one that Ricardo had first raised and de Viti had elaborated.

  Barro's response to Feldstein and Buchanan acknowledged that uncertainty may affect how individuals respond to government finance decisions. Still, Barro argued that this complication would not clearly imply that public debt issuance raises aggregate demand in any systematic direction.

  Gerald P. O'Driscoll offered a different kind of challenge in 1977. He examined an Encyclopaedia Britannica article in which Ricardo had expanded his treatment of the subject. O'Driscoll argued that Ricardo changed so many features of his original argument in that article that the result was effectively a Ricardian Nonequivalence Theorem. Ricardo himself, in elaborating his own idea, had enumerated the reasons why it would not hold. Barro offered a broader defense against other critiques in 1989.

• 5. The Reagan-Era Test

  ›

  The Ronald Reagan era offered a real-world laboratory. The Reagan administration cut taxes and increased military spending, producing a historically large budget deficit. Government revenue fell from 10.01 percent of potential GNP during 1976-1980 to 8.86 percent during 1981-1985. The ratio of the budget deficit to potential GNP had not exceeded 4 percent from the end of World War II until 1981. After 1981, it did. The inflation- and cycle-adjusted deficit ratio was 2.56 percent of potential GNP during 1981-1986, the largest figure recorded between 1958 and 1986.

  Ricardian equivalence predicted that citizens anticipating future tax increases would respond by saving more. The data told the opposite story. Net private saving as a percentage of GNP was 8.55 in the 1976-1980 period and fell to 7.47 percent in the 1981-1986 period. Consumption as a share of GNP rose from 62.96 percent to 64.72 percent over the same interval. Research by Chris Carroll, James Poterba, and Lawrence Summers confirmed what the numbers suggested: increases in government deficits were followed by decreases in private saving, not increases. Even in a laboratory setting where the required assumptions are enforced, individual behavior has been found to be inconsistent with Ricardian equivalence.

• 6. Rule-of-Thumb Consumers

  ›

  A 2005 study by Gali, Lopez-Salido, and Valles introduced a structural refinement to the debate. Rather than assuming all consumers are the forward-looking Ricardian type, the authors extended a standard New Keynesian model to include two kinds of consumers. Ricardian consumers plan over their full lifetimes. Rule-of-thumb consumers spend all their current income, every period, without reference to what taxes might look like in the future. The model also allows for sticky prices.

  The authors analyzed U.S. data and found that consumption rises persistently following government spending shocks. Under plausible parameter values, the mixed model produces stronger fiscal multipliers and fits observed spending patterns more closely than the traditional Ricardian framework does. The rule-of-thumb consumer, as a modeling device, captures the liquidity constraints that critics of the perfect capital market assumption had raised since Feldstein's 1976 critique.

• 7. What the Theorem Actually Clarifies

  ›

  New classical macroeconomics did not simply dismiss fiscal policy as useless. It specified the conditions under which fiscal policy fails to change aggregate demand. Ricardian equivalence holds only when the path of government expenditures is fixed and when agents form rational expectations. If either condition does not hold, countercyclical fiscal policy can be effective.

  A tax cut unaccompanied by any change in the spending path implies a future tax increase. Rational consumers who recognize this connection save the windfall rather than spend it. But if the government can credibly change its spending path, or if consumers do not expect the income gain to be withdrawn later, then the initial tax cut can lift consumption. The theorem, read carefully, is as much a map of when fiscal policy works as an argument that it does not.

  Fiscal reforms that make the public sector more efficient change the spending path without exerting direct countercyclical pressure. In doing so, they restore the conditions under which future stimulus can reach the real economy. That is the practical implication Barro left for policymakers: before a tax cut can move output, governments may first need to establish credible commitments about the long-run path of public expenditures.