IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iae/iaewps/wp2013n30.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Vision Versus Prudence: Government Debt Financing of Investment

Author

Listed:
  • John Freebairn

    (Department of Economics, The University of Melbourne)

  • Max Corden

    (Department of Economics, The University of Melbourne)

Abstract

This article explores the arguments for and against the use of government debt to finance large-scale public investments. Relative to the options of higher taxation or lower other expenditures, debt finance means that both the costs and the benefits of the investment fall on future generations. Debt funded public investments can be an important component of a fiscal stimulus policy package, especially when the effectiveness of monetary policy is limited. While the vision arguments presume socially beneficial investment projects are chosen, political choices often involve projects with low benefit cost ratios. More debt involves higher and higher costs, not only interest costs, but also laxer fiscal choices, a weaker basis for macroeconomic policy to counter future economic shocks, and in extreme cases a loss of policy autonomy. An independent and transparent body to undertake benefit cost assessments of investment projects, and with public release and scrutiny, would support a higher level of debt finance.

Suggested Citation

  • John Freebairn & Max Corden, 2013. "Vision Versus Prudence: Government Debt Financing of Investment," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2013n30, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    • Handle: RePEc:iae:iaewps:wp2013n30
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/downloads/working_paper_series/wp2013n30.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Liesel Henn & Michael B. Charles & Neil Douglas & Keith Sloan, 2015. "Debate: Multi-criteria framework needed to assess alternative financing methods for large-scale projects," Public Money & Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 100-102, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Government investment; fiscal policy; debt finance;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • E62 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Macroeconomic Policy, Macroeconomic Aspects of Public Finance, and General Outlook - - - Fiscal Policy; Modern Monetary Theory
    • H54 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Infrastructures
    • O43 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Growth and Aggregate Productivity - - - Institutions and Growth

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:iae:iaewps:wp2013n30. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sheri Carnegie (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/mimelau.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.