Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-06T14:53:33.997Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

THE MODERN RICARDIAN EQUIVALENCE THEOREM: DRAWING THE WRONG CONCLUSIONS FROM DAVID RICARDO’S ANALYSIS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2013

JAMES C.W. AHIAKPOR
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The modern Ricardian equivalence theorem focuses on the intertemporal equivalence between taxation and bond financing of government expenditures that David Ricardo considered practically irrelevant, rather than their contemporaneous equivalence in terms of the opportunity cost of government spending. Relying upon the implausible assumption of each individual’s future tax-capitalization behavior that Ricardo explicitly rejected, the modern Ricardian equivalence theorem reaches the exact opposite conclusions about government deficit spending than Ricardo argued. This paper explains these fundamental problems with the modern Ricardian equivalence proposition and shows an alternative method of arguing Robert Barro’s original point about the inefficacy of Keynesian deficit spending.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , March 2013 , pp. 77 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ahiakpor, James C.W. 1985. “Ricardo on Money: The Operational Significance of the Non-neutrality of Money in the Short Run.” History of Political Economy 17 (Spring): 17–30.Google Scholar
Ahiakpor, James C. W. 2001. “On the Mythology of the Keynesian Multiplier.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 60 (October): 745–773.Google Scholar
Ahiakpor, James C. W. 2009. “The Phillips Curve Analysis: An Illustration of the Classical Forced-Saving Doctrine.” Journal of the History of Economic Thought 31, 2 (June): 143–160.Google Scholar
Bailey, Martin J. 1962. National Income and the Price Level. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Bailey, Martin J. 1971. National Income and the Price Level. Second edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Barro, Robert J. 1974. “Are Government Bonds Net Wealth?” Journal of Political Economy 82, 6 (Nov.–Dec.): 1095–1117.Google Scholar
Barro, Robert J. 1976. “Perceived Wealth in Bonds and Social Security and the Ricardian Equivalence Theorem: Reply to Feldstein and Buchanan.” Journal of Political Economy 84, 2 (April): 343–350.Google Scholar
Barro, Robert J. 1989. “The Ricardian Approach to Budget Deficits.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 3, 2 (Spring): 37–54.Google Scholar
Barro, Robert J. 2010. Intermediate Macro. Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Blaug, Mark. 1996. Economic Theory in Retrospect. Fifth edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Branson, William H. 1972. Macroeconomic Theory and Policy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Buchanan, James M. 1958. Public Principles of Public Debt. Homewood, Ill.: Irwin, Richard D..Google Scholar
Buchanan, James M. 1976. “Barro on the Ricardian Equivalence Theorem.” Journal of Political Economy 84, 2 (April): 337–342.Google Scholar
Churchman, Nancy. 2001. David Ricardo on Public Debt. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Feldstein, Martin. 1982. “Government Deficit and Aggregate Demand.” Journal of Monetary Economics 9 (January): 1–20.Google Scholar
Gordon, Robert J. 2006. Macroeconomics. Tenth edition. New York: Pearson, Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Hume, David. [1752] 1970. Hume’s Writings on Economics, edited by Rotwein, Eugene. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Kochin, Levis A. 1974. “Are Future Taxes Anticipated by Consumers?: Comment.” Journal of Money, Credit and Banking 6, 2 (August): 385–394.Google Scholar
Levy, David. 1986. “The Paradox of the Sinking Fund.” In Buchanan, James M., Rowley, Charles K., and Rollison, Robert D., eds., Deficits. New York, NY: Blackwell, pp. 93–113.Google Scholar
Mankiw, N. Gregory 2010. Macroeconomics. Seventh edition. New York: Worth.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Dennis P. 2004. The Classical Economists Revisited. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
O’Driscoll, Gerald P. “The Ricardian Nonequivalence Theorem.” Journal of Political Economy 84, 1 (February): 207–210.Google Scholar
Ricardo, David. 1951, 1957. Works and Correspondence. Edited by Piero Sraffa. 11 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Seater, John J. 1993. “Ricardian Equivalence.” Journal of Economic Literature 31, 1 (March): 142–190.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. [1776] 1976. The Wealth of Nations, edited by Cannan, Edwin. Volumes 1 and 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tobin, James. 1971. Essays in Economics. Volume 1, Macroeconomics.Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Tullio, Giuseppe. 1989. “Smith and Ricardo on the Long-Run Effects of the Growth of Government Expenditure, Taxation, and Debt: Is Their Theory Relevant Today?” History of Political Economy 21 (4): 723–736.Google Scholar