Hubbry Logo
Government debtGovernment debtMain
Open search
Government debt
Community hub
Government debt
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Government debt
Government debt
Government debt
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
This article is part of a series on
Public finance
Detail from the mural "Government" by Elihu Vedder in the Library of Congress
Policies
Fiscal policy
Monetary policy
Trade policy
Optimum
Reform

A country's gross government debt (also called public debt or sovereign debt[1]) is the financial liabilities of the government sector.[2]: 81  Changes in government debt over time reflect primarily borrowing due to past government deficits.[3] A deficit occurs when a government's expenditures exceed revenues.[4][2]: 79–82  Government debt may be owed to domestic residents, as well as to foreign residents. If owed to foreign residents, that quantity is included in the country's external debt.[5]

In 2020, the value of government debt worldwide was US$87.4 trillion, or 99% measured as a share of gross domestic product (GDP).[6] Government debt accounted for almost 40% of all debt (which includes corporate and household debt), the highest share since the 1960s.[6] The rise in government debt since 2007 is largely attributable to stimulus measures during the Great Recession, and the COVID-19 recession.[6]

Governments may take on debt when the government's spending desires do not match government revenue flows. Taking debt can allow governments to conduct fiscal policy more effectively, avoid tax increases, and making investments with long-term returns.[7] The ability of government to issue debt has been central to state formation and to state building.[8][9] Public debt has been linked to the rise of democracy, private financial markets, and modern economic growth.[8][9]

Actors that issue sovereign credit include private investors, commercial banks, multilateral development banks (such as the World Bank) and other governments.[7] Low-income, highly indebted states tend to attain loans from multilateral development banks and other governments because they are considered too risky for private investors.[7] Higher-income states tend to issue sovereign bonds, which are subsequently traded by investors in secondary markets.[7] Ratings agencies (e.g. Moody's, Standard & Poor's) issue ratings that measure the credit-worthiness of governments, which may in turn affect the value of sovereign bonds in secondary markets.[7]

Measurement

[edit]
Government debt-to-GDP ratio in % (2024, IMF)

Government debt is typically measured as the gross debt of the general government sector that is in the form of liabilities that are debt instruments.[2]: 207  A debt instrument is a financial claim that requires payment of interest and/or principal by the debtor to the creditor in the future. Examples include debt securities (such as bonds and bills), loans, and government employee pension obligations.[2]: 207 

International comparisons usually focus on general government debt because the level of government responsible for programs (for example, health care) differs across countries and the general government comprises central, state, provincial, regional, local governments, and social security funds.[2]: 18, s2.58, s2.59  The debt of public corporations (such as post offices that provide goods or services on a market basis) is not included in general government debt, following the International Monetary Fund's Government Finance Statistics Manual 2014 (GFSM), which describes recommended methodologies for compiling debt statistics to ensure international comparability.[2]: 33, s2.127 

The gross debt of the general government sector is the total liabilities that are debt instruments. An alternative debt measure is net debt, which is gross debt minus financial assets in the form of debt instruments.[2]: 208, s7.243  Net debt estimates are not always available since some government assets may be difficult to value, such as loans made at concessional rates.[2]: 208–209, s7.246 

Debt can be measured at market value or nominal value. As a general rule, the GFSM says debt should be valued at market value, the value at which the asset could be exchanged for cash.[2]: 55, s3.107  However, the nominal value is useful for a debt-issuing government, as it is the amount that the debtor owes to the creditor.[2]: 191, ft28  If market and nominal values are not available, face value (the undiscounted amount of principal to be repaid at maturity)[2]: 56  is used.[2]: 208, s7.238 

A country's general government debt-to-GDP ratio is an indicator of its debt burden since GDP measures the value of goods and services produced by an economy during a period (usually a year). As well, debt measured as a percentage of GDP facilitates comparisons across countries of different size. The OECD views the general government debt-to-GDP ratio as a key indicator of the sustainability of government finance.[3]

Causes of government debt accumulation

[edit]

An important reason governments borrow is to act as an economic "shock absorber". For example, deficit financing can be used to maintain government services during a recession when tax revenues fall and expenses rise for say unemployment benefits.[10] Government debt created to cover costs from major shock events can be particularly beneficial. Such events would include

In the absence of debt financing, when revenues decline during a downturn, a government would need to raise taxes or reduce spending, which would exacerbate the negative event.

While government borrowing may be desirable at times, a "deficits bias" can arise when there is disagreement among groups in society over government spending.[12][13] Increasing government debt can be described as a tragedy of the commons, where individual politicians are incentivised to increase their popularity with deficit spending, but if politicians follow this incentive then the public debt-to-GDP ratio grows until sovereign default.[14] To counter deficit bias, many countries have adopted balanced budget rules or restrictions on government debt. Examples include the "debt anchor"[10] in Sweden; a "debt brake" in Germany and Switzerland; and the European Union's Stability and Growth Pact agreement to maintain a general government gross debt of no more than 60% of GDP.[15][16]

Historic benchmarks

[edit]
The sealing of the Bank of England Charter (1694)

The ability of government to issue debt has been central to state formation and to state building.[8][9] Public debt has been linked to the rise of democracy, private financial markets, and modern economic growth.[8][9] For example, in the 17th and 18th centuries England established a parliament that included creditors, as part of a larger coalition, whose authorization had to be secured for the country to borrow or raise taxes. This institution improved England's ability to borrow because lenders were more willing to hold the debt of a state with democratic institutions that would support debt repayment, versus a state where the monarch could not be compelled to repay debt.[8][9]

As public debt came to be recognized as a safe and liquid investment, it could be used as collateral for private loans. This created a complementarity between the development of public debt markets and private financial markets.[8] Government borrowing to finance public goods, such as urban infrastructure, has been associated with modern economic growth.[8]: 6 

Written records point to public borrowing as long as two thousand years ago when Greek city-states such as Syracuse borrowed from their citizens.[8]: 10–16  But the founding of the Bank of England in 1694 revolutionised public finance and put an end to defaults such as the Great Stop of the Exchequer of 1672, when Charles II had suspended payments on his bills. From then on, the British Government would never fail to repay its creditors.[17] In the following centuries, other countries in Europe and later around the world adopted similar financial institutions to manage their government debt.

Centre: George III, drawn as a paunchy man with pockets bulging with gold coins, receives a wheel-barrow filled with the money-bags from William Pitt, whose pockets also overflow with coin. To the left, a quadriplegic veteran begs on the street. To the right, George, Prince of Wales, is depicted dressed in rags.
A new way to pay the National Debt, James Gillray, 1786. King George III, with William Pitt handing him another moneybag.

In 1815, at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, British government debt reached a peak of more than 200% of GDP,[18] nearly 887 million pounds sterling.[19] The debt was paid off over 90 years by running primary budget surpluses (that is, revenues were greater than spending after payment of interest).[11]

In 1900, the country with the most total debt was France (£1,086,215,525), followed by Russia (£656,000,000) then the United Kingdom (£628,978,782);[19] on a per-capita basis, the highest-debt countries were New Zealand (£58 12s. per person), the Australian colonies (£52 13s.) and Portugal (£35).[19]

In 2018, global government debt reached the equivalent of $66 trillion, or about 80% of global GDP,[20] and by 2020, global government debt reached $87US trillion, or 99% of global GDP.[6] The COVID-19 pandemic caused public debt to soar in 2020, particularly in advanced economies that put in place sweeping fiscal measures.[6]

Impacts of government debt

[edit]
National Debt Clock outside the IRS office in NYC, April 20, 2012

Government debt accumulation may lead to a rising interest rate,[10] which can crowd out private investment as governments compete with private firms for limited investment funds. Some evidence suggests growth rates are lower for countries with government debt greater than around 80 percent of GDP.[10][21] A World Bank Group report that analyzed debt levels of 100 developed and developing countries from 1980 to 2008 found that debt-to-GDP ratios above 77% for developed countries (64% for developing countries) reduced future annual economic growth by 0.017 (0.02 for developing countries) percentage points for each percentage point of debt above the threshold.[22][23]

Excessive debt levels may make governments more vulnerable to a debt crisis, where a country is unable to make payments on its debt, and it cannot borrow more.[10] Crises can be costly, particularly if a debt crisis is combined with a financial/banking crisis which leads to economy-wide deleveraging. As firms sell assets to pay off debt, asset prices fall which risks an even greater fall in incomes, further depressing tax revenue and requiring governments to drastically cut government services.[24] Examples of debt crises include the Latin American debt crisis of the early 1980s, and Argentina's debt crisis in 2001. To help avoid a crisis, governments may want to maintain a "fiscal breathing space". Historical experience shows that room to double the level of government debt when needed is an approximate guide.[10]

Government debt is built up by borrowing when expenditure exceeds revenue, so government debt generally creates an intergenerational transfer. This is because the beneficiaries of the government's expenditure on goods and services when the debt is created typically differ from the individuals responsible for repaying the debt in the future.

An alternative view of government debt, sometimes called the Ricardian equivalence proposition, is that government debt has no impact on the economy if individuals are altruistic and internalize the impact of the debt on future generations.[25] According to this proposition, while the quantity of government purchases affects the economy, debt financing will have the same impact as tax financing because with debt financing individuals will anticipate the future taxes needed to repay the debt, and so increase their saving and bequests by the amount of government debt. Such higher individual saving means, for example, that private consumption falls one-for-one with the rise in government debt, so the interest rate would not rise and private investment is not crowded out.

In public discourse, politicians and commentators frequently draw parallels between government debt and household debt, as they argue that a government taking on debt is akin to a household taking on debt. However, economists generally challenge this analogy, as the functions and constraints of governments and households are vastly dissimilar.[26][27][28][29] Differences include that central banks can print money,[30][31][32] interest rates on government borrowing may be cheaper than individual borrowing,[30][31] governments can increase their budgets through taxation,[30][31] governments have indefinite planning horizons,[33] national debt may be held primarily domestically (the equivalent of household members owing each other),[33] governments typically have greater collateral for borrowing,[34] and contractions in government spending can cause or prolong economic crises and increase the debt of the government.[29] For governments, the main risks of overspending may revolve around inflation rather than the size of the debt per se.[32][33]

Risk

[edit]

Credit (Default) risk

[edit]
Main article: Credit risk

Historically, there have been many cases where governments have defaulted on their debts, including Spain in the 16th and 17th centuries, which nullified its government debt several times; the Confederate States of America, whose debt was not repaid after the American Civil War; and revolutionary Russia after 1917, which refused to accept responsibility for Imperial Russia's foreign debt.[35]

If government debt is issued in a country's own fiat money, it is sometimes considered risk free because the debt and interest can be repaid by money creation.[36][37] However, not all governments issue their own currency. Examples include sub-national governments, like municipal, provincial, and state governments; and countries in the eurozone. In the Greek government-debt crisis, one proposed solution was for Greece to leave the eurozone and go back to issuing the drachma[38][39] (although this would have addressed only future debt issuance, leaving substantial existing debt denominated in what would then be a foreign currency).[40]

Debt of a sub-national government is generally viewed as less risky for a lender if it is explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by a regional or national level of government. When New York City declined into what would have been bankrupt status during the 1970s, a bailout came from New York State and the United States national government. U.S. state and local government debt is substantial — in 2016 their debt amounted to $3 trillion, plus another $5 trillion in unfunded liabilities.[41]

Inflation risk

[edit]

A country that issues its own currency may be at low risk of default in local currency, but if a central bank without inflation targeting provides finance by buying government bonds (debt monetization or indirectly quantitative easing), this can lead to price inflation. In an extreme case, in the 1920s Weimar Germany suffered from hyperinflation when the government used money creation to pay off the national debt following World War I.

Exchange rate risk

[edit]

While U.S. Treasury bonds denominated in U.S. dollars may be considered risk-free to an American purchaser, a foreign investor bears the risk of a fall in the value of the U.S. dollar relative to their home currency. A government can issue debt in foreign currency to eliminate exchange rate risk for foreign lenders, but that means the borrowing government then bears the exchange rate risk. Also, by issuing debt in foreign currency, a country cannot erode the value of the debt by means of inflation.[42] Almost 70% of all debt in a sample of developing countries from 1979 through 2006 was denominated in U.S. dollars.[43]

No included or implicit debt

[edit]
Further information: Unfunded mandate

Most governments have contingent liabilities, which are obligations that do not arise unless a particular event occurs in the future.[2]: 76  An example of an explicit contingent liability is a public sector loan guarantee, where the government is required to make payments only if the debtor defaults.[2]: 210, s.7.252  Examples of implicit contingent liabilities include ensuring the payment of future pension obligations, covering the obligations of subnational governments in the event of a default, and spending for natural disaster relief.[2]: 209–210 

Explicit contingent liabilities and net implicit social security obligations should be included as memorandum items to a government's balance sheet,[2]: 69, 76–77, 209–212  but they are not included in government debt because they are not contractual obligations.[2]: 210, s.7.252  Indeed, it is not uncommon for governments to change unilaterally the benefit structure of social security schemes, for example (e.g., by changing the circumstances under which the benefits become payable, or the amount of the benefit).[2]: 76, s4.49  In the U.S. and in many countries, there is no money earmarked for future social insurance payments — the system is called a pay-as-you-go scheme. According to the 2018 annual reports from the trustees for the U.S. Social Security and Medicare trust funds, Medicare is facing a $37 trillion unfunded liability over the next 75 years, and Social Security is facing a $13 trillion unfunded liability over the same time frame.[44] Neither of these amounts are included in the U.S. gross general government debt, which in 2024 was $34 trillion.[45]

In 2010 the European Commission required EU Member Countries to publish their debt information in standardized methodology, explicitly including debts that were previously hidden in a number of ways to satisfy minimum requirements on local (national) and European (Stability and Growth Pact) level.[46]

See also

[edit]

By country:

Lists:

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Government debt

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Government debt, also known as public or sovereign debt, comprises the total outstanding financial obligations of a to creditors, accumulated primarily through issuing securities to cover fiscal deficits where expenditures exceed revenues. This debt is typically measured on a gross basis, encompassing direct liabilities without netting out financial assets, and serves as a mechanism for governments to finance public investments, wars, or economic stimulus beyond immediate tax collections. Sovereign borrowing traces its origins to medieval around the , initially as short-term loans from merchants and evolving into more structured perpetual annuities and bonds by the 16th and 17th centuries, with the establishment of institutions like the in 1694 marking a pivotal advancement in scalable . Over time, debt has financed transformative events such as the , where obligations reached $75 million by 1791, and World War II expansions that elevated ratios in many nations. In the postwar era, advanced economies have sustained historically high levels, often exceeding prior peaks, due to currencies and interventions that mitigate default risks but introduce inflationary pressures. As of , global public totaled approximately $102 , representing a substantial share of world GDP and projected to reach 100% by 2029 amid persistent deficits averaging 5% of GDP. sustainability critically depends on the differential between real interest rates (r) and rates (g), where g > r allows stabilization without primary surpluses, though vulnerability arises from shocks like recessions or rising borrowing costs. Empirical analyses reveal that public debt-to-GDP ratios above 90% correlate with reduced , averaging 1% lower annually across countries and episodes, through channels such as crowding out private investment and heightened fiscal rigidity that constrains policy responses. High debt episodes have precipitated crises in emerging markets, like in 2010, underscoring risks of default or restructuring, while advanced economies face subtler threats of stagnation or debasement via .

Definition and Measurement

Gross versus Net Debt

Gross government debt encompasses the total liabilities of a sovereign entity arising from its borrowing activities, including both securities held by external investors (such as individuals, corporations, foreign governments, and central banks) and intragovernmental holdings where one government account owes another. This measure captures the full nominal value of outstanding debt instruments without offsets for assets or internal claims, aligning with definitions in international standards like the IMF's Government Finance Statistics Manual, which treats gross debt as liabilities net of valuation adjustments but excluding subtractions for financial assets. In contrast, net government debt adjusts the gross figure by subtracting government-held financial assets corresponding to debt instruments, such as cash reserves, deposits, or securities owned by public entities, yielding a net financial liability position. For many countries, including the United States, a common proxy for net debt is "debt held by the public," which excludes intragovernmental obligations—like U.S. Treasury securities purchased by trust funds for programs such as Social Security and Medicare—and thus represents only external borrowing demands. As of August 2025, U.S. gross federal debt stood at approximately 123% of GDP, while debt held by the public was lower, around 99% of GDP, highlighting the adjustment's magnitude. Gross debt provides a more comprehensive indicator of fiscal obligations because intragovernmental holdings, while internal, constitute enforceable claims that must be serviced through future revenues or additional borrowing, rather than mere offsets. In the U.S., for example, the Social Security Old-Age and Survivors Trust Fund holds over $2.8 in special-issue securities as of 2024, reflecting surpluses invested in government ; redeeming these for benefit payments effectively requires shifting resources from current taxpayers to retirees, obscuring the intergenerational transfer inherent in pay-as-you-go systems. Net measures can thus understate the true resource commitments, particularly when government assets are illiquid, already earmarked, or insufficient to cover liabilities without economic distortion. National principles, such as those under the 2008, emphasize gross for cross-country comparability to avoid variations in asset valuation that might mask underlying fiscal pressures.

Debt-to-GDP Ratio and Alternative Metrics

The , defined as a government's total public outstanding divided by its annual , functions as the predominant metric for evaluating sovereign levels relative to economic output. This ratio aims to contextualize debt burdens by comparing nominal stocks to the flow of produced, with higher ratios signaling potential challenges in fiscal management. Empirical analyses, such as that by Reinhart and Rogoff, indicate that advanced economies with debt-to-GDP ratios surpassing 90% exhibit median real GDP growth rates approximately 1 lower than those below the threshold, based on historical data spanning two centuries and over 40 countries. Subsequent research has largely corroborated a negative association between elevated debt ratios and growth, though the precise threshold remains debated due to data sensitivities and methodological critiques. Alternative metrics address limitations in the by incorporating repayment dynamics and fiscal capacity. The debt service-to-revenue ratio measures the share of government revenues absorbed by interest and principal payments, highlighting risks independent of GDP scale. Similarly, the primary balance-to-GDP ratio assesses the government's non-interest fiscal position, where sustained primary surpluses can stabilize or reduce debt even at high stock levels. These indicators, employed in frameworks like the IMF's debt sustainability analysis, emphasize and adjustment potential over static size comparisons. Overreliance on debt-to-GDP neglects critical variables such as trajectories, differential between real interest rates (r) and growth rates (g), and structural factors like demographic aging. When r exceeds g, debt ratios tend to rise absent compensatory primary surpluses, amplifying rollover risks and crowding out private investment. Aging populations exacerbate this by eroding growth through shrinking workforces and escalating entitlement expenditures, effects not fully reflected in current debt metrics. Institutional strength and creditor confidence further modulate thresholds, underscoring that no universal benchmark guarantees without regard to these dynamics.

Historical Context

Pre-20th Century Debt Practices

In ancient , rulers periodically enacted debt amnesties, such as the Sumerian "amargi" or Akkadian "andurarum," to cancel personal s, liberate debt-bondsmen, and restore to free citizens, addressing agrarian imbalances without sustained borrowing. These edicts, issued upon royal accessions or after wars, targeted palace-owed debts rather than private commercial loans, reflecting a systemic recognition that unchecked debt servitude threatened social stability and agricultural productivity. Similarly, in ancient , interest-bearing debts existed but were managed through royal interventions to prevent widespread insolvency, though less formalized than Mesopotamian clean slates. The financed expenditures primarily through coinage debasement rather than formal bonded debt, reducing the silver content of the from nearly pure under the to under 5% by the 3rd century AD. Emperor Nero initiated this in AD 64 by clipping the from 3.9 grams of silver to 3.4 grams, a practice accelerated under successors like to cover military pay and administrative costs amid territorial overextension. This inflationary mechanism, absent equivalent taxation capacity, eroded currency value and contributed to economic strain, culminating in and partial defaults on obligations through devalued payments, rather than outright repudiation. Medieval European monarchs borrowed from merchant bankers for wars but frequently defaulted, as sovereigns lacked credible repayment mechanisms without parliamentary constraints. King Edward III of England repudiated loans exceeding £100,000 from Florentine firms Bardi and Peruzzi in 1345 during the Hundred Years' War, precipitating their bankruptcies and a credit contraction across Europe. Likewise, Philip IV of France, facing fiscal exhaustion from conflicts with England and Flanders, devalued the currency in 1306, expelled Jewish and Lombard lenders, and arrested the Knights Templar in 1307 to confiscate assets and evade debts estimated in millions of livres. These episodes underscored that pre-modern debt accumulation was episodic and war-driven, resolved via default, debasement, or asset seizure, as sustained high indebtedness invited creditor flight and domestic revolt. The shift toward funded debt emerged in 17th-century following the of 1688, which subordinated the crown to Parliament, enhancing repayment credibility and enabling long-term borrowing. The , established in 1694, underwrote government loans through subscriptions, marking the advent of institutionalized public credit. By 1751, consolidated annuities—or consols—were issued as perpetual bonds at 3-4% interest, allowing Britain to finance naval and colonial wars without default, as investors trusted parliamentary taxation to service obligations. This innovation contrasted with absolutist defaults, tying debt sustainability to representative oversight rather than monarchical fiat, though still limited by gold-standard constraints absent modern central banking.

20th Century Wars and Post-War Reduction

The major 20th-century wars, particularly World War I and World War II, precipitated unprecedented surges in government debt-to-GDP ratios across major economies, driven by massive wartime expenditures financed largely through borrowing. In the United States, the debt-to-GDP ratio rose from approximately 3% in 1916 to 29% by 1919 amid World War I mobilization costs exceeding $30 billion. Similarly, the United Kingdom's ratio climbed from under 20% pre-war to around 135% by 1919, reflecting expenditures that ballooned national debt from £650 million to £7.7 billion. These increases were temporary in peacetime reductions followed, but World War II amplified the scale: U.S. debt-to-GDP peaked at 106% in 1946 after federal spending reached $98 billion annually, while the UK's ratio hit approximately 249% that year, with wartime costs consuming over 50% of GDP. Post-war debt reductions in both nations demonstrated that high crisis-induced burdens could be alleviated through a combination of robust , fiscal discipline, and monetary policies that eroded real debt values, rather than outright repayment of principal. In the U.S., the declined to 23% by 1974 via sustained real GDP growth averaging 3.8% annually from 1946 to 1973, which outpaced nominal increases; primary surpluses in 1947–1949 and select later years reduced absolute levels; and moderate averaging 3–4% annually diminished the real burden, augmented by where the capped interest rates below market levels to keep servicing costs low. Simulations indicate that without these fiscal and monetary measures, growth alone would have lowered the only to about 74% by 1974, underscoring the necessity of deliberate policy actions beyond mere expansion. The UK's post-1945 trajectory mirrored this, with the falling to under 50% by the 1970s through average annual GDP growth of 2.5–3%, that averaged 4–5% in the 1950s–1960s eroding real liabilities, and restrained borrowing amid reconstruction efforts, though absolute continued rising modestly until stabilized by productivity gains in export sectors. These episodes contrast with earlier patterns, such as the UK's post-Napoleonic debt peak of over 200% of GDP in , which declined over the primarily through industrial growth rates exceeding interest payments (averaging 1–2% real yields via consolidated annuities), without relying on or repression to the same degree. from these reductions highlights that war-spurred debts—finite and tied to productive investments like and —proved manageable when followed by high growth and fiscal surpluses, enabling denominator expansion in the debt-to-GDP metric faster than numerator growth. This differs markedly from peacetime accumulations rooted in ongoing entitlements, where absent such discipline, ratios stagnate or rise despite comparable growth assumptions.

Late 20th to Early 21st Century Expansion

In the , federal debt held by the public expanded markedly during the , rising from $908 billion in 1980 to $3.2 trillion by 1990, more than tripling in nominal terms amid policy shifts including substantial tax rate reductions under the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 and increased defense spending. The climbed from 31% in 1980 to approximately 48% by the early 1990s, reflecting persistent fiscal deficits driven by revenue shortfalls from tax cuts that did not fully offset spending growth, contrary to supply-side expectations of self-financing through . Similar patterns emerged in other advanced economies, where expansions and structural spending commitments compounded by slower revenue growth contributed to upward debt trajectories despite periods of economic prosperity. The 2000s saw further accumulation, culminating in the 2008 global financial crisis, which prompted large-scale government interventions including bailouts and fiscal stimuli that elevated public debt levels across advanced economies. In the U.S., measures like the $700 billion and subsequent American Recovery and Reinvestment Act added trillions to deficits, pushing the above 100% by 2012. Public debt ratios in nearly 90% of advanced economies exceeded pre-2008 levels, with averages surpassing 100% of GDP in many jurisdictions as automatic stabilizers and discretionary responses amplified borrowing needs during the recession. The in 2020 accelerated this expansion through unprecedented stimulus packages, with governments worldwide deploying trillions in relief, healthcare, and support measures that drove global public debt to a record $102 trillion by 2024. In advanced economies, debt-to-GDP ratios commonly exceeded 110%, underscoring a pattern of reliance on deficit financing for crisis response rather than preemptive fiscal restraint, despite prior warnings from bodies like the IMF about sustainability thresholds around 90-100% impeding growth. This era's debt buildup highlighted how political incentives favored short-term interventions over long-term balancing, embedding higher baseline borrowing even as economies recovered.

Causes of Accumulation

Fiscal Deficits from Entitlement Spending and Welfare Expansion

Mandatory spending on entitlement programs, such as Social Security, Medicare, and , constitutes the largest and most rapidly growing component of federal outlays in the United States, accounting for approximately 60% of total federal spending in 2023. These programs, designed as automatic stabilizers with eligibility tied to demographics and income thresholds rather than annual appropriations, generate structural deficits by committing governments to payments that escalate with population aging and healthcare costs, often exceeding dedicated revenues like payroll taxes. In 2023, mandatory outlays reached $3.8 trillion, with over half allocated to Social Security and Medicare alone, reflecting their entrenched role in budget imbalances. Pre-COVID-19, entitlement-driven spending consistently outpaced revenue growth, contributing to annual deficits even in non-recessionary periods; for instance, since , expansions in Social Security, healthcare programs, and net interest—largely fueled by prior entitlement commitments—have been primary factors in widening shortfalls. as a share of GDP doubled from 8.5% in 1973 to 17.6% by 2023, underscoring a long-term trajectory where program expansions and benefit adjustments compound fiscal pressures without corresponding revenue enhancements. Demographic shifts exacerbate this: the worker-to-beneficiary ratio for Social Security has declined from 3.3 in 2000 to a projected 2.1 by 2035, straining payroll tax inflows while beneficiary rolls swell due to the post-World War II cohort entering retirement. Projections from the indicate that Social Security and Medicare outlays will rise from 8.2% of GDP in 2023 to 10.1% by 2033, driven by mandatory benefit formulas that embed automatic cost-of-living adjustments and healthcare inflation exceeding general price growth. Medicare spending alone is forecasted to increase from 3.8% of GDP in 2023 to 5.8% over the long term, per the program's trustees, highlighting how open-ended commitments to elderly healthcare amplify deficits absent policy reforms. These trends account for roughly 84% of projected nominal spending growth through 2034 when combined with Social Security and interest costs, leaving limited fiscal space for other priorities. The accumulation of unfunded obligations underscores the unsustainability: estimates of the present value of future shortfalls for Social Security and Medicare exceed $100 trillion when incorporating obligations to current participants, far outstripping trust fund assets and general revenues. Official trustees' reports project Social Security's trust fund depletion by 2035 and Medicare's Hospital Insurance Trust Fund by 2036, after which benefits would require general fund transfers or cuts, manifesting as explicit deficits. Politically, these programs exhibit ratchet effects, where expansions during economic expansions or electoral cycles—such as benefit enhancements under prior administrations—prove resistant to reversal due to concentrated beneficiary interests outweighing diffuse taxpayer costs, perpetuating a cycle of deferred fiscal reckoning. Welfare expansions, including enlargements, similarly lock in higher baseline spending, as seen in state-federal matching formulas that incentivize broader eligibility without proportional revenue commitments.

Wars, Emergencies, and Ad Hoc Stimuli

The post-9/11 wars in and , along with related global operations, generated incremental U.S. federal outlays exceeding $1.9 trillion from fiscal year 2001 through 2018, primarily through emergency-designated appropriations that bypassed regular budgeting processes. These expenditures spiked military spending as a share of the federal , contributing to annual deficits that accumulated into trillions of additional without corresponding offsets in other areas. The elicited a comparable surge, with six major U.S. relief laws enacted in and 2021 authorizing about $4.6 trillion in spending, tax relief, and loans for pandemic response and economic support. This response elevated federal deficits to 14.9% of GDP in , pushing the held by the public from 79% of GDP at the end of 2019 to approximately 100% by the end of and over 120% by 2021. In historical context, produced a debt-to-GDP peak of 106% by 1946 through massive wartime borrowing to finance defense outlays that reached 37% of GDP. Postwar reduction to 23% of GDP by 1974 occurred via sustained economic expansion and fiscal contraction, including budget surpluses in 1947–1949 and a halving of federal spending from 41.8% of GDP in 1945 to under 18% within years. Recent emergencies, however, have amplified debt without analogous reversal, as post-9/11 military commitments lingered into the and COVID-era programs transitioned into ongoing entitlements without scaled-back outlays, entrenching higher baseline spending and deficits. Such shocks thus exacerbate preexisting fiscal trajectories by normalizing elevated borrowing levels absent disciplined retrenchment.

Political Incentives and Revenue Mismanagement

theory elucidates the persistence of government deficits through the lens of self-interested political actors who prioritize reelection over fiscal prudence, favoring expenditures that deliver concentrated benefits to key constituencies while imposing diffuse costs via future taxation or . Politicians engage in —mutual vote-trading for parochial projects—which amplifies spending without equivalent revenue discipline, as the discourages individual restraint. Short electoral cycles compound this dynamic, as incumbents emphasize immediate, tangible outputs over the intergenerational burdens of debt accumulation. Voters exhibit a systematic toward rewarding spending initiatives that promise near-term gains, while opposing visible increases, even when informed of deficit implications; experimental and observational studies confirm this asymmetry drives electoral incentives away from balanced budgets. In bicameral systems like the , from divided chambers frequently stymies broad spending reductions, as seen in repeated failures to enact entitlement reforms or baseline cuts during unified government periods, allowing baseline budgeting to perpetuate imbalances. Empirical data underscore structural flaws: U.S. federal deficits averaged 4.2% of GDP from to 2019—a prolonged expansion with annual GDP growth averaging 2.2%—signaling incentives override cyclical surpluses expected in booms. Revenue mismanagement arises from overreliance on progressive income taxes, which empirical analyses link to suppressed and labor supply, thereby constraining growth and taxable base expansion. High marginal rates in progressive structures correlate with reduced GDP per capita growth, as high earners alter behavior through lower work effort or relocation. In high-debt environments, this manifests in heightened base erosion and evasion, with multinational firms shifting profits via debt allocation and —estimated to cost governments 4-10% of revenue annually—exacerbating fiscal shortfalls as domestic flees. Countries with debt-to-GDP ratios exceeding 90%, such as those in the periphery during the 2010s sovereign , experienced evasion rates 20-30% above low-debt peers, underscoring how debt pressure incentivizes revenue flight over broadening the base.

Economic Impacts

Short-Term Stimulus Effects

Debt-financed government spending can temporarily elevate during economic downturns, particularly when activity is constrained by liquidity traps or the on interest rates. Empirical analyses of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), a $787 billion stimulus package enacted amid the , indicate short-term GDP boosts with multipliers estimated between 0.5 and 1.0 for core spending components like and to states. The (CBO) projected ARRA increased real GDP by 1.7% to 4.1% in 2010, the peak effect year, before fading, reflecting a cumulative multiplier under 1.0 when accounting for full implementation costs relative to output gains. Similar patterns appear in cross-country data from recessions, where fiscal multipliers for average 0.6 to 1.0, higher at the but rarely exceeding parity due to leakages like imports and saving. These effects, however, diminish rapidly, often within 1-2 years, as one-time expenditures fail to sustain momentum without addressing underlying structural impediments to growth. Crowding out occurs even in the short term through elevated borrowing, which competes for funds and pushes up rates, deterring private ; during ARRA, 10-year yields rose by approximately 50 basis points in anticipation of issuance, partially offsetting stimulus gains. Political allocation mechanisms further erode efficacy, as stimulus funds are frequently directed toward connected interests rather than high-impact projects, reducing jobs created per dollar spent. In ARRA's distribution, politically connected firms received disproportionate shares, yielding 10-20% lower employment multipliers compared to neutral allocations, exemplifying capture where influences yield suboptimal demand boosts. Such misdirection, evident in earmarks for low-multiplier items like green energy subsidies with limited immediate spillovers, underscores how fiscal interventions prioritize over efficient countercyclical support.

Long-Term Growth Suppression and Crowding Out

High levels of government have been empirically linked to suppressed long-term across numerous studies. Analysis by and , examining 200 years of data from advanced economies, found that when gross government exceeds 90% of GDP, median annual growth falls by approximately 1 compared to periods below this threshold. Subsequent research reviewing over 40 empirical studies confirms this negative relationship, with 45 out of 47 finding that rising public reduces growth rates, often through nonlinear thresholds where effects intensify beyond moderate levels. The primary mechanism is crowding out, where government borrowing competes for finite savings, elevating real rates and displacing private investment. from firm-level data in developing and advanced economies shows that higher public correlates with reduced private , as governments absorb available funds, leaving less for businesses to finance expansion or . In the U.S., post-2022 rate hikes to 5.25-5.50%—amid surging —have coincided with projections of sustained higher borrowing costs, amplifying this displacement; net payments on U.S. doubled to over $476 billion annually by 2022, signaling fiscal pressure that raises economy-wide rates. This displacement stifles and , as firms cut R&D expenditures and patenting activity under constrained financing. Cross-country indicate that elevated reduces corporate outputs, with one study finding a direct negative impact on new patents due to debt-induced tightening. U.S. Government Accountability Office analyses project that unchecked growth will lead to stagnant wages via diminished private investment and losses, as resources shift from dynamic sectors to servicing. The effects extend to intergenerational inequity, as current debt accumulation imposes real resource burdens on through higher taxes or redirected savings, without offsetting gains to service obligations. No supports a "" from debt-financed spending in the long run, as private savings represent actual foregone consumption and opportunities.

Associated Risks

Sovereign Default and Restructuring Risks

Sovereign default entails a government's to fulfill its contractual obligations, such as principal repayments or payments due on bonds or loans. Explicit defaults involve outright non-payment, severing access to international capital markets and often precipitating legal actions by under governing law, typically New York or conventions. In contrast, represents a negotiated alternative, involving agreements to modify terms like extending maturities, reducing coupon rates, or imposing principal haircuts to restore sustainability without immediate cessation of payments. These mechanisms differ fundamentally: explicit defaults trigger immediate market exclusion and potential asset seizures, whereas restructurings, while imposing losses, preserve some ongoing relations with . Key triggers for default or include erosion of investor confidence, often signaled by surging yields on sovereign bonds relative to benchmarks like U.S. Treasuries, reflecting demands for compensation against perceived risk. High public debt levels exacerbate this by eroding investor confidence, leading to higher borrowing costs through elevated risk premiums that constrain fiscal space and limit the government's capacity for economic stimulus during downturns. Credit default swaps (CDS), which function as against default, exhibit sharp spikes in premiums—measured in basis points—as markets price higher probabilities of non-payment; for example, spreads can escalate from under 100 basis points to over 1,000 in months preceding distress events. Such dynamics arise when fiscal imbalances, including persistent primary deficits exceeding growth rates, render debt dynamics unstable under standard projections: if interest rates on new debt exceed nominal GDP growth, the inevitably rises absent corrective measures. Empirical evidence links elevated sovereign debt to heightened crisis probabilities, with rapid debt accumulation phases preceding a substantial share of banking and sovereign distress episodes. IMF-updated databases on 151 systemic banking crises from 1970 onward reveal that high indebtedness correlates with subsequent vulnerabilities, as fiscal strains transmit to financial sectors via guarantees or rollover failures. World Bank analyses further indicate that debt surges are frequently associated with ensuing crises, amplifying default risks through interconnected banking-sovereign loops. Absent reforms like entitlement cuts or tax base broadening to achieve primary surpluses, these risks intensify, rendering default or restructuring probable as debt service absorbs disproportionate budget shares—often exceeding 20-30% in vulnerable cases—and markets enforce discipline via prohibitive yields.

Inflationary Monetization and Currency Devaluation

Inflationary monetization refers to the process by which a central bank creates base money to directly or indirectly finance government deficits, often through purchases of sovereign debt, thereby expanding the money supply and devaluing the currency in real terms. Elevated debt can lead to loss of monetary control, where fiscal pressures undermine central bank independence, fostering fiscal dominance that exacerbates inflation risks by prioritizing deficit financing over price stability. This mechanism allows governments to meet obligations without raising taxes or issuing new bonds at market rates, but it imposes an inflation tax that reduces the purchasing power of money holdings and erodes the real value of outstanding debt, functioning as an implicit default on creditors. Unlike explicit default, monetization avoids legal restructuring but transfers wealth from savers and bondholders to debtors, including the issuing government, without addressing underlying fiscal imbalances. Quantitative easing (QE), involving large-scale central bank asset purchases, operates as quasi- when it systematically absorbs government securities amid persistent deficits, blurring the line between independent and fiscal financing. In extreme cases, unchecked risks hyperinflationary spirals, as seen in the , where the Reichsbank's printing to cover reparations and spending led to monthly rates exceeding 300% by late 1923, culminating in currency collapse. Similarly, Zimbabwe's Reserve Bank financed fiscal shortfalls through from 2004 onward, driving annual to 231 million percent by 2008, which destroyed savings and prompted dollarization. These episodes illustrate how undermines currency credibility when fiscal dominance overrides monetary restraint, though modern QE has often avoided immediate due to banking sector dynamics that initially trap reserves rather than multiplying . Post-2020 U.S. experience highlights monetization's inflationary pressures without reaching thresholds. The Federal Reserve's surged by approximately $4.5 trillion from March 2020 to March 2022 via QE, coinciding with fiscal deficits totaling over $5 trillion cumulatively through 2023, which propelled money supply growth to a peak of 26.9% year-over-year in February 2021. This monetary expansion, amplified by direct stimulus transfers, correlated with inflation climbing to 9.1% in June 2022, the highest since 1981, with empirical analyses attributing roughly 30% of the 2021-2022 price surge to deficit-financed pressures exceeding supply capacity. Such disproportionately burdens fixed-income groups like retirees, whose real incomes fell by up to 5% annually during the spike, while eroding nominal bond values and prompting central banks to hike rates, thereby increasing future debt servicing costs. The fallacy that sovereign merely redistributes domestically—"we owe it to ourselves"—ignores substantial , which stood at about 25% of U.S. public ($8.5 out of $36 ) as of mid-2025, effectively exporting 's costs abroad and risking retaliatory or demands for higher yields. Even for domestic portions, benefits accrue unevenly to financial asset holders, while broad currency regresses on wage earners and cash savers lacking hedges like equities or . Sustained reliance on this approach can unanchor expectations, fostering wage-price loops and further , as trust in fiscal solvency wanes without reforms to spending or .

Intergenerational and Interest Burden Effects

Government debt imposes an intergenerational burden by transferring fiscal obligations from current taxpayers to , who must service the accumulated principal and interest through higher taxes, reduced public services, or diminished economic opportunities. This mechanism functions as deferred taxation, where borrowing today finances current expenditures but requires repayment later, often without the benefiting generations contributing to the original spending decisions. Empirical analyses indicate that sustained high public levels correlate with reduced long-term , which in turn lowers future wages and productivity for younger cohorts. For instance, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has warned that escalating federal could result in stagnant wages and higher borrowing costs for individuals, as resources are diverted to debt servicing rather than investments that enhance . The component of this burden compounds over time, crowding out discretionary on productive areas such as and , net payments on the federal debt are projected to surpass $1 trillion annually starting in 2026 and climb to approximately $1.7 trillion by 2034, representing a rapidly growing share of the . These outlays, which already exceed spending on programs like defense in recent years, limit fiscal flexibility and perpetuate a cycle where alone demands ever-larger borrowing, effectively imposing a by incentivizing short-term political decisions at the expense of long-term sustainability. Cross-country studies reinforce this, showing that higher public debt-to-GDP ratios are associated with diminished , as the wealth transfer favors current bondholders—often older generations—over future taxpayers. Aging populations exacerbate these effects in advanced economies, where shrinking workforces and rising dependency ratios amplify the debt load without the postwar economic booms that historically eroded debt burdens through rapid growth. In nations like and those in , demographic shifts mean fewer contributors support expanding retiree claims on entitlements, making payments a heavier proportional strain and reducing the scope for growth-driven debt reduction observed after . highlights that population aging heightens fiscal pressures, potentially forcing households to absorb more costs privately while governments grapple with unsustainable debt trajectories. This mismatch underscores the absence of automatic escapes from high debt in low-fertility, long-lived societies, where compounded transfers resources intergenerationally without offsetting productivity gains.

Theoretical Debates

Keynesian and Neo-Keynesian Justifications

posits that government debt-financed spending serves as a countercyclical tool to address insufficient , particularly during economic downturns when private investment and consumption falter, thereby restoring without relying solely on market self-correction. In John Maynard Keynes's The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936), deficits are justified to bridge output gaps in liquidity traps or depressions, where proves ineffective, as increased public expenditure directly boosts demand and multipliers propagate through the economy. This approach assumes idle resources, such as unemployed labor, can be mobilized without significant inflationary pressure in slumps. Neo-Keynesian frameworks extend this by incorporating microfoundations like nominal rigidities and , modeling deficits within IS-LM or setups to stabilize output fluctuations. Under —a condition of chronically low natural interest rates and deficient demand, as articulated by economists like Larry Summers—persistent deficits are rationalized to offset structural savings gluts and sustain potential growth, rather than confining borrowing to transient recessions. Proponents argue that in such environments, constraints on interest rates necessitate fiscal activism to prevent prolonged underutilization of capacity. Empirical estimates support higher fiscal multipliers during recessions, with government spending increases yielding GDP responses of approximately 1.5 to 2.0 times the outlay in contractions, compared to 0.5 in expansions, due to factors like constrained and stabilizers amplifying effects. Studies across countries confirm multipliers for spending exceed unity in downturns, though consumption-based stimuli show smaller impacts. However, these effects exhibit state-dependence, rising more sharply in recessions than falling in booms. Keynesian justifications face caveats from , which holds that rational households anticipate future tax hikes to service debt, increasing private savings and neutralizing stimulus, though empirical tests reveal partial offsets due to constraints and finite horizons among agents. Multipliers also display at elevated debt levels, as higher public borrowing ratios erode effectiveness by signaling fiscal unsustainability or crowding private credit, with analysis indicating fading boosts to activity beyond certain thresholds. These limits underscore that while demand-side rationales hold in acute slumps, extensions to chronic deficits risk overlooking offsetting behavioral responses and long-run sustainability constraints.

Fiscal Conservative and Austrian Critiques

Fiscal conservatives contend that persistent government deficits and debt accumulation undermine by crowding out , as public borrowing competes for limited savings and drives up rates. This mechanism reduces capital available for productive private uses, such as business expansion or innovation, thereby stifling long-term growth. Proponents, including economists aligned with supply-side principles, argue that fiscal discipline through balanced budgets is essential for maintaining investor confidence and avoiding the of expecting future bailouts or to erode debt burdens. Austrian school economists extend this critique by viewing government debt as a catalyst for malinvestment, where deficit-financed spending, often enabled by accommodation of low interest rates, distorts price signals and misallocates resources toward unsustainable projects. In , artificially suppressed rates signal false abundance of savings, prompting overinvestment in higher-order goods like or capital-intensive industries that cannot be sustained without continuous credit expansion, ultimately leading to busts characterized by recessions and corrective liquidations. Figures such as and emphasized that public debt exacerbates these cycles by politicizing , detached from genuine consumer preferences or profitability tests. Empirical evidence supports these concerns, with multiple studies documenting that high public debt-to-GDP ratios correlate with subsequent economic slowdowns; for instance, a one-percentage-point increase in the debt ratio is associated with a reduction in annual GDP growth by approximately 0.013 to 0.034 percentage points, with thresholds around 90% marking intensified negative effects. Such patterns hold across advanced economies, where elevated debt precedes periods of subdued growth and heightened vulnerability to shocks, independent of short-term Keynesian multipliers. From a first-principles perspective, governments operate without the that disciplines private enterprises, lacking market-driven incentives to minimize or prioritize , which results in chronic overspending on low-value programs insulated from competitive pressures. This structural inefficiency amplifies debt's distortive effects, as public expenditures often favor politically motivated allocations over economically rational ones, eroding overall without corresponding output gains. Advocates of these views prescribe fiscal rules mandating balanced budgets to restore and align incentives with sustainable use.

Modern Monetary Theory and Empirical Rebuttals

Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) asserts that monetary sovereigns issuing fiat currencies face no inherent solvency risk for debts in their own currency, as they can create to fulfill obligations without reliance on taxation or borrowing from markets. Proponents maintain that the true limits on arise from real resource availability rather than financial constraints, with emerging as the signal of excess demand overwhelming supply. Bonds, in this view, serve primarily as a tool to manage interest rates rather than a funding mechanism, while taxes function to create demand for the currency and control inflationary pressures. Rebuttals emphasize MMT's neglect of dynamics, where sustained deficits prompt investors to demand higher yields to compensate for perceived risks of or default, imposing discipline through rising borrowing costs that can precede overt . This enforces fiscal restraint absent in MMT's framework, as evidenced by yield spikes during periods of fiscal expansion. Political incentives further undermine MMT's feasibility, as democratic pressures favor spending over restraint, fostering where governments exploit flexibility without internalizing long-term costs like eroded investor confidence. MMT's inflation modeling, centered on economic slack—unused labor and capacity as a buffer against price pressures—overestimates this slack's role while underplaying supply rigidities and expectation shifts. Critiques from the highlight how MMT's slack metrics fail to capture sectoral bottlenecks or global supply disruptions, leading to underpredicted inflationary episodes. The U.S. post-2020 fiscal response, involving over $5 in stimulus amid claims of ample slack, resulted in CPI peaking at 9.1% in June 2022, driven by demand-pull effects that econometric tests reject as compatible with MMT's core equations. Empirically, no fiat issuer has maintained indefinitely high debt-to-GDP ratios without triggering crises, as historical precedents like post-World War interwar depreciations and 20th-century hyperinflations demonstrate fiscal overreach eroding currency viability when real limits bind. MMT's absence of formalized, falsifiable bounds—relying instead on ad hoc inflation targeting—limits its predictive power, distinguishing it from rigorous economic modeling.

Historical Crises and Case Studies

Latin American Debt Crisis of the 1980s

The emerged in the late 1970s and early 1980s due to excessive external borrowing fueled by recycled petrodollars from oil-exporting nations, which commercial banks lent to governments in the region at low initial interest rates to finance development projects and cover balance-of-payments deficits. These loans, predominantly denominated in U.S. dollars, left borrowers vulnerable to currency mismatches and rising global interest rates, as most Latin American economies lacked sufficient dollar revenues from exports. The second oil shock of 1979 exacerbated pressures by inflating import costs, while a and declining prices—key exports for countries like (oil) and (soybeans and minerals)—eroded fiscal capacities. By 1982, Latin America's total had ballooned to approximately $327 billion, with debt-to-GDP ratios for major economies rising from 30% in 1979 to nearly 50%. The crisis crystallized on August 12, 1982, when announced it could no longer service its roughly $80 billion in external obligations, primarily due to its inability to roll over short-term debts amid spiking U.S. interest rates under Chairman Paul Volcker's anti-inflation policy, which pushed prime rates above 20%. This declaration triggered contagion fears, as U.S. banks held significant exposure—equivalent to over 100% of their capital in some cases—prompting a freeze in new lending and spreading payment difficulties to countries like , , and , with collective defaults or reschedulings exceeding $300 billion. Initial responses involved IMF-led packages combining emergency with measures, such as fiscal contractions and cuts, but these often deepened recessions without restoring growth, as enforced repayments prioritized creditors over domestic adjustment. From 1982 to 1989, dubbed the "Lost Decade," the region endured severe economic contraction, with average annual GDP growth near zero, incomes falling by up to 10% in affected countries, surging, and real wages declining amid estimated at $100-150 billion. episodes compounded hardships, notably in , where annual rates exceeded 3,000% by mid-1989 due to monetary financing of deficits and failed stabilization attempts like the Austral Plan. The Brady Plan, introduced in 1989 under U.S. Treasury Secretary Nicholas Brady, marked a turning point by enabling voluntary restructurings: creditors exchanged old loans for new at reduced principal (haircuts of 30-50%) and lower fixed interest rates, collateralized by U.S. zero-coupon bonds and IMF/World Bank guarantees, ultimately resolving over $60 billion in claims and restoring market access. The episode underscored developing economies' acute vulnerability to dollar-denominated debt, where mismatches between local-currency revenues and hard-currency obligations amplified shocks from U.S. monetary tightening and commodity busts, rendering fixed exchange-rate regimes unsustainable without reserves. It also illustrated in international bailouts, as IMF facilities and U.S.-orchestrated lender commitments initially forestalled defaults to protect Western banks, delaying necessary writedowns and imposing decade-long that stifled investment and growth, unlike the 1930s defaults which permitted swifter recoveries through and . Empirical analyses post-crisis confirmed that such interventions prolonged overhangs, with lending resuming only after explicit loss recognition under Brady mechanisms.

European Sovereign Debt Crisis of the 2010s

The crisis crystallized in October 2009 when Greece's incoming socialist government revised the budget deficit to 12.7% of GDP, up from the outgoing administration's estimate of around 3.7%, with later confirming a peak of 15.4% amid revelations of data manipulation including off-market swaps and unreported spending. This exposed chronic fiscal imbalances—public debt exceeding 127% of GDP by year-end—stemming from structural inefficiencies like bloated public sectors, , and overly generous pensions, compounded by the global financial shock that dried up private capital flows. architecture intensified vulnerabilities: without independent or currency devaluation options, fiscally weaker peripherals faced rigid nominal constraints, while pre-crisis convergence criteria were loosely enforced, allowing borrowing at low German-like rates despite divergent fundamentals. Contagion rapidly affected , , and , where sovereign spreads surged—Ireland's from banking guarantees totaling 20% of GDP post-property bust, Portugal's from chronic deficits, and Spain's from regional fiscal overruns and topping 25%. received three Troika-led bailouts aggregating €289 billion in loans from 2010-2018, incorporating private sector involvement with a 53.5% haircut on €200 billion in bonds via in to avert disorderly default. The ECB, bound by no-monetary-financing prohibitions, deployed liquidity tools including €1 trillion in three-year LTROs (2011-2012) that enabled banks to purchase peripheral sovereign debt, and the 2012 OMT framework promising conditional secondary-market interventions, which restored by capping yields without outright purchases. Austerity mandates—fiscal consolidation targeting primary surpluses through expenditure restraint and revenue hikes—reduced 's deficit from 15.4% to 0.6% of GDP by 2015 but triggered a 25% GDP contraction, over 50%, and via skill erosion and . Empirical studies affirm that spending-led adjustments outperformed tax-heavy ones in promoting growth recovery, as seen in faster-reforming (GDP rebound by 2014), yet peripherals endured scarring with debt-to-GDP ratios peaking at 180% in . The episode underscored design flaws fostering : implicit expectations pre-crisis understated default risks, enabling unsustainable accumulation absent fiscal union safeguards or exit clauses, though post-crisis mechanisms like ESM enhanced discipline. Recovery materialized post-2016 with 2% annual growth driven by exports and , but elevated borrowing costs and persisted as legacies.

Debt Levels as of 2025

Global reached approximately $99.2 trillion in terms as of mid-2025, equivalent to over 90% of global GDP, with total (public and private) stabilizing above 235% of GDP following post-pandemic expansions. This aggregate reflects uneven recovery patterns, where fiscal responses to the crisis added trillions in borrowing across jurisdictions, persisting into 2025 without proportional . In the United States, gross federal debt outstanding surpassed $38 by late October 2025, driven by ongoing deficits and delayed fiscal adjustments. The stood at roughly 125% for the year, up from pre-pandemic levels due to sustained spending outpacing nominal GDP growth. Servicing costs have escalated with the average on federal debt rising to about 3.3% amid higher yields on new issuances, contributing to interest payments exceeding $1 annually for the first time. Advanced economies exhibit stark disparities in debt burdens, with maintaining the highest ratio among major peers at approximately 230% of GDP in 2025, sustained by domestic financing and low yields despite demographic pressures. In contrast, emerging markets collectively hold lower absolute ratios—often below 60%—but face acute vulnerabilities from external borrowing in foreign currencies and tighter global financing conditions.
Country/RegionDebt-to-GDP Ratio (2025)
125%
230%
140%
85%
65%
Emerging Markets (avg.)~55%
These figures, drawn from IMF assessments, highlight how advanced economies' high ratios are often backstopped by reserve currencies or status, while emerging counterparts contend with rollover risks at elevated rates.

Projections and Policy Challenges

Global public debt is projected to surpass 100% of GDP by 2029, marking the highest level since 1948 and continuing an upward trajectory amid persistent deficits and subdued growth prospects. In advanced economies, where debt levels already exceed 110% of GDP as of , long-term forecasts indicate further escalation without corrective measures, driven by aging populations and rising entitlement expenditures. For the specifically, the (CBO) estimates federal debt held by the public could reach 181% of GDP by 2053 under current law, assuming no major policy shifts, with interest payments consuming an increasing share of revenues. These projections hinge on debt dynamics where the real (r) exceeds (g), amplifying the debt-to-GDP ratio unless offset by primary budget surpluses; empirical analyses confirm that elevated debt burdens can elevate r through investor risk premiums, undermining sustainability. Key policy challenges include entrenched political opposition to reforming entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, which account for over half of federal spending and face insolvency risks by the mid-2030s without adjustments such as raising retirement ages or means-testing benefits. Geopolitical tensions, including heightened defense requirements, further strain budgets, while low growth—projected below 2% annually in many economies—exacerbates r-g imbalances by curbing revenue potential. Resistance to fiscal consolidation stems from short-term electoral incentives and public aversion to cuts, yet models indicate that delays compound burdens through compounding interest, potentially crowding out private investment and triggering market-driven . Effective responses prioritize achieving and maintaining primary surpluses—where revenues exceed non-interest spending—to stabilize or reduce ratios, as demonstrated in jurisdictions enforcing such . Fiscal rules like Switzerland's debt brake, implemented in 2003, have constrained structural deficits to 0.5% of GDP during expansions while allowing flexibility in downturns, resulting in debt-to-GDP stabilization around 40% and consistent primary balances. Germany's analogous rule has similarly improved primary balances post-2010, averting unchecked accumulation despite economic shocks. Complementary measures include expenditure caps on discretionary items and pro-growth reforms, such as broadening tax bases to fund targeted rate reductions, though evidence underscores that surplus-driven paths outperform reliance on indefinite borrowing, which historical thresholds around 200% of GDP render untenable without .

References

  1. https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/sovereign-debt
  2. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2015/wp15238.pdf
  3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014498315000418
  4. https://treasurydirect.gov/government/historical-debt-outstanding/
  5. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2019/006/article-A001-en.xml
  6. https://unctad.org/publication/world-of-debt
  7. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2025/09/17/global-debt-remains-above-235-of-world-gdp
  8. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2020/09/what-is-debt-sustainability-basics
  9. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/rogoff/files/growth_in_time_debt_aer.pdf
  10. https://www.crfb.org/papers/qa-gross-debt-versus-debt-held-public
  11. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9781616351564/ch002.xml
  12. https://www.insee.fr/en/metadonnees/definition/c2188
  13. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/mb201006_focus07.en.pdf
  14. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-debt/
  15. https://www.pgpf.org/article/the-federal-government-has-borrowed-trillions-but-who-owns-all-that-debt/
  16. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/debt-to-the-penny/
  17. https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2016/353
  18. https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2021/impact-public-debt-economic-growth
  19. https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/cesifo1_wp10273.pdf
  20. https://www.pgpf.org/article/what-is-r-versus-g-and-why-does-it-matter-for-the-national-debt/
  21. https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2020/october/debt-gdp-ratio-how-high-too-high-it-depends
  22. https://www.cato.org/commentary/government-debt-historic-problem-time-issue-really-different
  23. https://michael-hudson.com/2018/04/palatial-credit-origins-of-money-and-interest/
  24. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/daily-life-and-practice/ancient-interest-rates/
  25. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341814015_Interest-bearing_debt_in_Ancient_Egypt
  26. https://money.visualcapitalist.com/currency-and-the-collapse-of-the-roman-empire/
  27. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2025-10-24/the-decline-and-fall-of-the-debasement-trade
  28. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/currency-and-the-collapse-of-the-roman-empire/
  29. https://books.openedition.org/igpde/3885?lang=en
  30. https://www.historytoday.com/archive/knights-templar-arrested-france
  31. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47638
  32. https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2016/07/consols-the-never-ending-bonds/
  33. https://tontinecoffeehouse.com/2022/03/07/creating-the-consols/
  34. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S
  35. https://obr.uk/box/post-world-war-ii-debt-reduction/
  36. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2024/005/article-A001-en.xml
  37. https://articles.obr.uk/300-years-of-uk-public-finance-data/index.html
  38. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/reassessing-fall-us-public-debt-after-world-war-ii
  39. https://www.nber.org/papers/w31577
  40. https://historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/covid-19-and-the-uk-national-debt-in-historical-context/
  41. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA2600/RRA2614-4/RAND_RRA2614-4.pdf
  42. https://www.investopedia.com/us-national-debt-by-year-7499291
  43. https://www.macrotrends.net/1381/debt-to-gdp-ratio-historical-chart
  44. https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/doctor-econ/2000/11/national-debt-80s/
  45. https://home.treasury.gov/data/troubled-asset-relief-program
  46. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2019/12/17/blog-new-data-on-world-debt-a-dive-into-country-numbers
  47. https://unctad.org/news/global-public-debt-hit-record-102-trillion-2024-striking-developing-countries-hardest
  48. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualized-government-debt-around-the-world/
  49. https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-of-the-federal-budget-is-mandatory-spending/
  50. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59728
  51. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-deficit/
  52. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/2023-06/Mandatory_Fast_Facts_PDF.pdf
  53. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/
  54. https://www.taxnotes.com/lr/resolve//7gp2l
  55. https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/reports-statements/financial-report/mda-unsustainable-fiscal-path.html
  56. https://www.crfb.org/blogs/84-percent-spending-growth-will-come-health-social-security-and-interest
  57. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2025/1/27/complete-measures-of-us-national-debt
  58. https://www.cato.org/blog/medicare-social-security-are-responsible-100-percent-us-unfunded-obligations
  59. https://www.pgpf.org/article/chart-pack-the-us-budget/
  60. https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-military-spending-cost-wars
  61. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/RL33110.pdf
  62. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106647
  63. https://taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-did-fiscal-response-covid-19-pandemic-affect-federal-budget-outlook
  64. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56309
  65. https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/winter-2016/fiscal-contraction-economic-expansion-2013-sequester-post-world-war-ii
  66. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/curbing-federal-emergency-spending-government-spending-grows-excessive-wasteful
  67. https://www.cato.org/policy-report/may/june-2013/public-choice-revolution-textbooks
  68. https://www.econlib.org/library/Topics/HighSchool/GovernmentFailuresPublicChoiceAnalysis.html
  69. http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/IEA%2520Public%2520Choice%2520web%2520complete%252029.1.12.pdf
  70. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/1/article/916342
  71. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/going-nowhere-a-gridlocked-congress/
  72. https://www.cbo.gov/data/budget-economic-data
  73. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSD
  74. https://taxfoundation.org/research/all/state/income-taxes-affect-economy/
  75. https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/working_papers/2001/wp_01-9
  76. https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/policy-issues/base-erosion-and-profit-shifting-beps.html
  77. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R40623
  78. https://www.taxjustice.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Tax-dodging-the-scale-of-the-problem-TJN-Briefing.pdf
  79. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/111th-congress-2009-2010/reports/02-23-arra_0.pdf
  80. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/workingpaper/49925-FiscalMultiplier_1.pdf
  81. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/111th-congress-2009-2010/reports/08-24-arra.pdf
  82. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/tnm/2014/tnm1404.pdf
  83. https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2025/eb_25-28
  84. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/1978c_bpea_friedman.pdf
  85. https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/ap-macroeconomics/ap-long-run-consequences-of-stabilization-policies/crowding-out/a/crowding-out
  86. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2021005pap.pdf
  87. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w32574/w32574.pdf
  88. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2021005r1pap.pdf
  89. https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/impact-public-debt-economic-growth-what-empirical-literature-tells-us
  90. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstreams/f9961b13-b887-4d9a-9889-8827fbdacc39/download
  91. https://budget.house.gov/press-release/the-consequences-of-debt
  92. https://www.pgpf.org/programs-and-projects/fiscal-policy/monthly-interest-tracker-national-debt/
  93. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0378426622000759
  94. https://www.gao.gov/americas-fiscal-future/how-could-federal-debt-affect-you
  95. https://www.gao.gov/assets/2025-02/d25107714Supplement.pdf
  96. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sovereign-default.asp
  97. https://www.chicagofed.org/~/media/publications/working-papers/2012/wp2012-06-pdf.pdf
  98. https://www.imf.org/external/np/pp/eng/2013/042613.pdf
  99. https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-credit-default-swaps-flash-default-warning-speculators-rush-2023-05-25/
  100. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-025-04985-8
  101. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/files/2022023pap.pdf
  102. https://thedocs.worldbank.org/en/doc/396691616007805479-0050022021/original/Globalwavesofdebtfullreport.pdf
  103. https://www.suerf.org/publications/suerf-policy-notes-and-briefs/when-high-debt-dampens-fiscal-power-how-public-debt-shapes-impcs-and-fiscal-transmission/
  104. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2018/09/14/Systemic-Banking-Crises-Revisited-46232
  105. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/560291579701550183/pdf/Debt-and-Financial-Crises.pdf
  106. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2024/050/article-A001-en.xml
  107. https://economics.td.com/gbl-debt-monetization
  108. https://budgetlab.yale.edu/research/inflationary-risks-rising-federal-deficits-and-debt
  109. https://economics.td.com/domains/economics.td.com/documents/reports/ss/Global_Debt_Monetization.pdf
  110. https://som.yale.edu/blog/monetization-of-fiscal-deficits-and-covid-19-primer
  111. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M2SL
  112. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2023/may/the-rise-and-fall-of-m2
  113. https://economics.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk13091/files/inline-files/Hazell.pdf
  114. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/post-pandemic-us-inflation-tale-fiscal-and-monetary-policy
  115. https://usafacts.org/answers/how-much-us-government-debt-is-owned-by-other-countries/country/united-states/
  116. https://www.piie.com/sites/default/files/2024-12/wp24-22.pdf
  117. https://www.gao.gov/blog/another-warning-about-nations-fiscal-health-and-financial-record-keeping
  118. https://www.crfb.org/blogs/interest-debt-grow-past-1-trillion-next-year
  119. https://www.pgpf.org/article/cbos-new-report-shows-worsening-fiscal-outlook/
  120. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-long-term-impact-of-aging-on-the-federal-budget/
  121. https://www.westernasset.com/us/en/research/whitepapers/aging-populations-and-growing-public-debt-burdens.cfm
  122. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2014/09/basics.htm
  123. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/keynesianeconomics.asp
  124. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2019/06/keynes-john-maynard-economics-government-spending/
  125. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/secular-stagnation-history-heretical-economic-idea
  126. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2015/05/a-brief-history-of-secular-stagnation/
  127. https://www.nber.org/reporter/2015number2/how-powerful-are-fiscal-multipliers-recessions
  128. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0954349X24001255
  129. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/ricardianequivalence.asp
  130. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1513.pdf
  131. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/crowdingouteffect.asp
  132. https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/impact-public-debt-interest-rates
  133. https://www.ijcb.org/journal/ijcb12q0a11.pdf
  134. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/austrian-school-of-economics.asp
  135. https://yipinstitute.org/article/the-2008-financial-crisis-an-austrian-analysis
  136. https://qjae.mises.org/article/144350
  137. https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-spotlights/public-debt-and-economic-growth-what-evidence-says
  138. https://www.cato.org/testimony/reducing-wasteful-federal-spending
  139. https://www.quora.com/Is-government-inefficient-and-wasteful-as-compared-to-private-business
  140. https://sjes.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41937-024-00128-z
  141. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/primer-on-modern-monetary-theory.pdf
  142. https://www.investopedia.com/modern-monetary-theory-mmt-4588060
  143. https://www.cato.org/cato-journal/fall-2019/modern-monetary-theory-critique
  144. https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2021/eb_21-12
  145. https://www.pragcap.com/modern-monetary-theory-mmt-critique/
  146. https://www.mercatus.org/economic-insights/expert-commentary/5-problems-mmt
  147. https://www.mercatus.org/research/policy-briefs/how-reliable-modern-monetary-theory-guide-policy
  148. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ijfe.2955
  149. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5069079
  150. https://www.intereconomics.eu/contents/year/2021/number/6/article/modern-monetary-theory-a-wrong-compass-for-decision-making.html
  151. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/latin-american-debt-crisis
  152. https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/january-2015/sovereign-debt-crisis
  153. https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/The-Case-of-Mexico.pdf
  154. https://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/639531468743177547/pdf/multi0page.pdf
  155. https://ipdcolumbia.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/The_Latin_American_Debt_Crisis_in_Historical_Perspective_Jos_Antonio_Ocampo.pdf
  156. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/history/2012/pdf/c9.pdf
  157. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1996/11/cj16n2-4.pdf
  158. https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/BFIMFR_WP_FinalChapter.pdf
  159. https://works.swarthmore.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1074&context=fac-economics
  160. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/001/2023/258/article-A001-en.xml
  161. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/numbers-game-turns-nasty-for-greek-stats-chief-idUSBRE92D0B3/
  162. https://euobserver.com/green-economy/arbae2f0a1
  163. https://www.cfr.org/timeline/greeces-debt-crisis-timeline
  164. https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/socar050210a
  165. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/european-sovereign-debt-crisis.asp
  166. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-45243088
  167. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1528.pdf
  168. https://www.nber.org/digest/feb18/quantifying-impact-ecb-policies-during-debt-crisis
  169. https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2019/10/01/sp093019-The-IMF-and-the-Greek-Crisis-Myths-and-Realities
  170. https://www.heritage.org/europe/report/europes-fiscal-crisis-revealed-depth-analysis-spending-austerity-and-growth
  171. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314935250_Moral_Hazard_and_the_Eurozone_Crisis
  172. https://appext.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?Id=1189
  173. https://www.piie.com/microsites/greek-debt-crisis-no-easy-way-out
  174. https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/GDD/2025%2520Global%2520Debt%2520Monitor.pdf
  175. https://www.crfb.org/press-releases/gross-national-debt-reaches-38-trillion
  176. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-debt-to-gdp
  177. https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/interest-expense-avg-interest-rates/
  178. https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/GGXWDG_NGDP%40WEO/JPN
  179. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-countries-with-the-most-government-debt-in-2025/
  180. https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/GGXWDG_NGDP%40WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD
  181. https://tradingeconomics.com/japan/government-debt-to-gdp
  182. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/imf-sounds-alarm-about-high-global-public-debt-urges-countries-build-buffers-2025-10-15/
  183. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/oct/15/global-government-debt-100-percent-of-gdp-by-2029-imf-uk
  184. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2025/09/17/global-debt-remains-above-235-of-world-GDP
  185. https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/economy/spotlight/us-government-debt-33-trillion-dollar-problem.html
  186. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2021/09/07/Debt-Dynamics-in-Emerging-and-Developing-Economies-Is-R-G-a-Red-Herring-465345
  187. https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/WP/2020/English/wpiea2020137-print-pdf.ashx
  188. https://www.aei.org/articles/the-path-to-entitlement-reform/
  189. https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61270
  190. https://www.fitchratings.com/research/sovereigns/us-fiscal-outlook-remains-challenging-despite-near-term-revenue-boost-18-06-2025
  191. https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2023/10/6/when-does-federal-debt-reach-unsustainable-levels
  192. https://www.allfinancejournal.com/article/view/479/8-1-69
  193. https://www.crema-research.ch/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/on-the-effectiveness-of-debt-brakes-the-swiss-experience.pdf
  194. https://www.conference-board.org/research/ced-policy-backgrounders/swiss-debt-brake-us-debt-ceiling
  195. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/322495/1/cesifo1_wp11933.pdf
  196. https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2025/eb_25-22
  197. https://bipartisanpolicy.org/issue-brief/fiscal-rules-international-strategies-for-managing-government-debt-and-deficits/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.