Abstract
Classical economists had developed advanced theories of public debt. These theories, however, have received less attention compared with those of value and distribution. Classical theories of national debt at best receive cursory consideration and are only used to offer further justification to modern theories. Smith’s discussion of the unproductive role of the state and the Ricardian equivalence theorem are examples that are found routinely in the books of public finance or macroeconomics. As for the ideas of classical economists per se these are considered inappropriate for modern economies and are ignored even in books of history of economic thought. This paper takes issue with this view and argues that the ideas of classical economists on public debt might be more relevant nowadays than is commonly thought. (JEL: B12, B22)
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abel A., “Ricardian Equivalence Theorem", in J. Eatwell, M. Milgate and P. Newman, eds., The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, New York: MacMillan, 1987, pp. 174-78.
Barro R. (1974) Are Government Bonds Net Wealth?. Journal of Political Economy 82(6): 1095-1117
Barro R. (1989) The Ricardian Approach to Budget Deficits. Journal of Economic Perespectives 3: 37-54
Barro R. (1998) Reflections on Ricardian Equivalence. In: Maloney J. (eds) Debt and Deficits: An Historical Perspective. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK
Bleaney M. (1976) Underconsumption Theories. International Publishers, New York
Buchanan J. (1976) Barro on the Ricardian Equivalence Theorem. Journal of Political Economy 84(2): 337-42
Churchman N. (2001) David Ricardo on Public Debt. Palgrave, Basingstoke
Dome T. (1997) Malthus on Taxation and National Debt. History of Political Economy 29(2): 275-94
Dome T. (2004) The Political Economy of Public Finance in Britain, 1767-1873. Routledge, London
Makridakis S., Wheelwright S., and Hyndman R., Real Daily Wages in Pounds, England, 1260 – 1994, www-personal.buseco.monash.edu.au, 1998.
Mill J.S., Principles of Political Economy, Fairfield, NJ: Augustus M. Kelley, 1976 [1848].
Mirowski P. (1982) Adam Smith Empiricism and the Rate of Profit in Eighteenth Century England. History of Political Economy 14(2):179-98
Mitchell B.(1988) British Historical Statistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
O’ Driscoll G.P. (1977) The Ricardian Nonequivalence Theorem. Journal of Political Economy 85(1): 207-10
Ricardo D. (1951a), On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, in P. Sraffa, ed., with the collaboration of M. Dobb, The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, vol. I, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951 [1817]].
Ricardo D. (1951b), The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, vol. IV, in P. Sraffa, ed., with the collaboration of M. Dobb, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951 [1810- 1815].
Ricardo D. (1951c), The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, vol. VIII, in P. Sraffa, ed., with the collaboration of M. Dobb, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951 [1819- 1821].
Smith A., The Wealth of Nations, in E. Cannan, ed., New York: Random House, 1937 [1776].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tsoulfidis, L. Classical economists and public debt. Int. Rev. Econ. 54, 1–12 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12232-007-0003-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12232-007-0003-8