- The debt-to-GDP ratio is the proportion of a country’s total debt to its total GDP (GDP).
- The debt-to-GDP ratio can also be thought of as the number of years it would take to repay debt if GDP were used as a measure of payback.
- The greater the debt-to-GDP ratio, the less likely the country is to repay its debt and the greater the chance of default, which might generate financial panic in domestic and international markets.
What is an appropriate GDP-to-debt ratio?
It enables them to assess a country’s debt-paying capacity. A high ratio, such as 101 percent, indicates that a country is unable to repay its debt. A ratio of 100 percent shows that there is just enough output to pay debts, whereas a lower ratio suggests that there is enough economic output to cover debts.
Is a high debt-to-GDP ratio harmful?
As long as the country’s economy is growing, a high debt-to-GDP ratio isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It can be used to leverage debt to boost long-term growth, much as equity financing for firms. Debt-to-GDP ratios can cause problems for countries in a variety of ways.
Why is Japan’s debt-to-GDP ratio so high?
Revenues were high due to affluent conditions during the Japanese asset price bubble of the late 1980s, Japanese stocks gained, and the number of national bonds issued was modest. The bursting of the economic bubble resulted in a drop in annual revenue. As a result, the number of national bonds issued swiftly grew. Because the majority of national bonds had a fixed interest rate, the debt-to-GDP ratio grew as nominal GDP growth slowed owing to deflation.
The prolonged depression hindered the increase in annual revenue. As a result, governments have begun to issue new national bonds to satisfy interest payments. Renewal national bond is the name of this national bond. The debt was not truly repaid as a result of issuing these bonds, and the number of bonds issued continued to rise. Since the asset price bubble burst, Japan has continued to issue bonds to cover its debt.
There was a period when the opportunity to implement austerity policies grew as the fear of losing the principal of interest (repayment) grew. However, the strategy was implemented, namely, the government’s insufficient budgetary action and the Bank of Japan’s failure to bring finance under control during a catastrophic recession brought on by austerity policies and others. There was a school of thought that implied apprehension about the general state of the economy, claiming that the Japanese economy had experienced deflation as a result of globalization and increased international competition. These issues influenced Japanese economic policy, resulting in a perceived negative impact on the country’s economic strength.
With the above-mentioned point of view, whether from the government’s mobilization of funds or the BOJ’s action to monetary squeezing, or from the point of view that it has been a deflation recession caused by long-term low demand, there are criticisms that it has harmed the economy’s ability to promote structural reform.
Why is having a lot of debt bad?
QUESTION: Why should I be concerned about the federal government’s debt burden?
ANSWER: Unless big policy changes are made, our national debt will soon exceed levels not seen since World War II, with no prospects of slowing down. Even more concerning is the fact that most of this debt has been used to fund current spending rather than long-term productive investments that are known to boost economic growth.
An ever-increasing debt burden is concerning since it may be too late to do anything about it once it becomes a visible problem. When investors refuse to buy our debt because they believe we can’t or won’t repay it, domestic interest rates can quickly soar, causing disastrous financial and economic crises across the board.
“High and rising federal debt makes the economy more vulnerable to rising interest rates and, depending on how that debt is financed, rising inflation,” the Congressional Budget Office cautions. The rising debt burden also boosts borrowing costs, delaying economic and national income growth and raising the risk of a fiscal crisis or a steady drop in Treasury securities’ value.”
A big and growing debt burden might also limit policymakers’ ability to respond to the next national crisis, whether it’s a natural disaster, a terrorist assault on our land, or another global health pandemic. Global disruptions can have disastrous economic implications, as the 2008 credit crisis and the 2020 coronavirus pandemic shown, requiring powerful fiscal policy responses. If the federal government does not move quickly to reduce our mounting debt, it will be forced to choose between failing to respond appropriately to the next national crisis and adding to an already unsustainable debt burden.
Finally, even at low interest rates, the net interest expenses of a large and growing national debt absorb budgetary resources (tax dollars) that could be invested in more productive ways. In fact, we’ve accumulated so much debt that, even with historically low interest rates, interest on the debt is expected to climb faster than any other category of federal spending over the next 30 years. Consider how far the United States could move on a variety of national priorities, such as affordable healthcare, improved roads and bridges, and a solution to global warming, if our national debt were more manageable.
Is a debt-to-GDP ratio of 60 unfavourable?
The speedier pace with which vaccines are being rolled out in developed countries, as well as greater proactive fiscal remedies being employed now and in the future, support a brighter post-pandemic economic picture for advanced economies.
But, while suffering from the pandemic’s economic effects just as much as their advanced counterparts, why aren’t developing and emerging economies opening their wallets enough to shore up their economies? Developing countries are suffering significant economic and social consequences as a result of the sheer magnitude of informal economies, which are populated by vulnerable, low-income workers who do not have the luxury of working from home and are subjected to inadequate hygiene and healthcare.
While rich economies’ budget deficits grew significantly in 2020, underdeveloped countries’ fiscal remedies were far more limited. According to the Institute of International Finance, the global government debt-to-GDP ratio climbed to 105.4 percent in Q4 2020, up from 88.3 percent in 2019. During this time, the emerging market ratio increased to 63.5 percent from 52.4 percent, a noteworthy improvement that was eclipsed by a stunning more than 20 percentage point increase in advanced economies to 130.4 percent from 109.7%.
Why, while having far better public debt conditions than advanced countries, are emerging countries more constrained in expanding fiscal stimulus packages?
The optimal public debt ratio has long been a source of debate among academics and policymakers. According to a study by renowned economists Carmen M. Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, median growth rates for nations with public debt over 90% of GDP are about 1% lower than in other countries.
The current value of total public debt at 70% of GDP is the threshold for high debt-carrying capability, according to the Joint World Bank-IMF Debt Sustainability Framework for low-income countries as of March 2021. Debt sustainability is characterized as medium (55 percent threshold) or weak (35 percent threshold) below this threshold.
The Stability and Growth Pact of the European Union stipulates that governmental debt should not exceed 60% of GDP. Different criteria may cause confusion, but they also demonstrate how difficult it is to develop a unified criterion that governs the fiscal policy area.
Although most emerging Asian economies have lower debt-to-GDP ratiosthe average debt-to-GDP ratio in Q4 2020 in emerging Asia was 63.5 percent, far lower than the global average of 105.4 percent, according to IMF datathey should not be complacent for the following reasons.
First, history shows that a country’s debt-to-GDP ratio rises as its economy matures, owing to population aging and rising social entitlement requirements, as well as the nature of debt-financed expenditures, which typically require periodic refinancing rather than eventual payback. These factors will only contribute to growing Asian economies’ medium- to long-term debt loads.
Second, while advanced economies are generally thought to have the capacity to maintain a high debt-to-GDP ratio, developing countries are frequently suspected of lacking such capacity, as high debt levels frequently result in credit rating downgrades by global credit rating agencies, as well as capital outflows and a drop in local currency values.
Third, while extraordinarily low interest rates make for inexpensive borrowing, increasing borrowing size could put pressure on the debt-to-GDP ratio unless it is accompanied by strong economic growth.
We are not yet out of the woods in terms of the pandemic. It is not the time to pull back on proactive fiscal expansions. To recover from the economic downturn and achieve a lasting and resilient economic recovery, many countries must continue to enhance budgetary responses and go beyond.
As a result, the fundamental question is how to combine this necessity with concerns about Asia’s growing fiscal deficit and debt-to-GDP ratio.
The first thing to think about is what to do with the debt proceeds. The contribution of these resources to economic recovery and growth, as well as the debt-to-GDP dynamics in the medium-to-long term, will be determined by how effectively they are utilised without waste.
Second, as as vital as the borrowing itself is transparency and effective communication with the market. If the debt issuing country’s debt servicing credibility is called into doubt, the foreign investors who will buy the debt instruments will also be prospective sellers.
While solid investor relations are vital for borrowing success, the government needs to communicate more with market participants and investors about the economic underpinnings of debt financing and how well debt is handled.
Third, governments must further strengthen the local currency bond market, which should involve broadening the domestic investor base, in order to avoid excessive reliance on external funding.
Finally, in order to prepare for an eventual exit from ultra-loose monetary policy, economies must extend their tax base through domestic resource mobilization initiatives in order to improve debt servicing capabilities.
It’s possible that there isn’t a perfect answer to the question of how much debt is too much debt. However, Asian economies must go beyond the figures to find methods to make the most of debt financing opportunities while avoiding the dangers of excessive debt buildup and inadequate debt management.
Is a country’s debt a bad thing?
When Is Public Debt Beneficial? Public debt is a useful approach for governments to gain extra capital to invest in their economic growth in the short term. Buying government bonds is a safe way for citizens in other countries to invest in the progress of another country. This is a far more secure option than foreign direct investment.
Will the United States ever be able to pay off its debt?
Congress has tried numerous times to reduce the national debt, but it has not been successful in reducing the debt’s increase. The federal government’s outstanding debt is known as the US debt.
What impact does high debt have on the economy?
However, if we do nothing, the converse is also true. Our economic environment will deteriorate if our long-term fiscal challenges are not addressed, as confidence will erode, access to capital will be limited, interest costs will crowd out key investments in our future, growth conditions will deteriorate, and our country will be at greater risk of economic crisis. Our future economy will be harmed if our long-term fiscal imbalance is not addressed, with fewer economic possibilities for individuals and families and less budgetary flexibility to respond to future crises.
Public investment is being reduced. As the federal debt grows, the government will devote a larger portion of its budget to interest payments, squeezing out public investments. Under existing law, interest expenses are expected to total $5.4 trillion over the next ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The United States currently spends more over $900 million each day on interest payments.
As more federal funds are diverted to interest payments, fewer resources will be available to invest in areas critical to economic growth. Although interest rates are now low to aid the economy’s recovery from the pandemic, this condition will not persist indefinitely. The federal government’s borrowing expenses will skyrocket as interest rates climb. Interest payments are expected to be the highest federal spending item in 30 years, according to the CBO “More than three times what the federal government has spent on R&D, non-defense infrastructure, and education combined in the past.
Private investment is down. Because federal borrowing competes for cash in the nation’s capital markets, interest rates rise and new investment in company equipment and structures is stifled. Entrepreneurs confront greater capital costs, which could stifle innovation and hinder the development of new innovations that could enhance our lives. Investors may come to distrust the government’s ability to repay debt at some point, causing interest rates to rise even higher, increasing the cost of borrowing for businesses and people. Lower confidence and investment would limit the rise of American workers’ productivity and salaries over time.
Americans have less economic opportunities. Growing debt has a direct impact on everyone’s economic chances in the United States. Workers would have less to use in their occupations if large levels of debt force out private investments in capital goods, resulting in poorer productivity and, as a result, lower earnings. Reduced federal borrowing, on the other hand, would mitigate these effects; according to the CBO, income per person might grow by as much as $6,300 by 2050 if our debt was reduced to 79 percent of the economy by that year.
Furthermore, excessive debt levels will have an impact on many other elements of the economy in the future. Higher interest rates, for example, as a result of increasing federal borrowing, would make it more difficult for families to purchase homes, finance vehicle payments, or pay for college. Workers would lack the skills to keep up with the demands of an increasingly technology-based, global economy if there were fewer education and training possibilities as a result of decreasing investment. Lack of support for R&D would make it more difficult for American enterprises to stay on the cutting edge of innovation, and would stifle wage growth in the US. Furthermore, slower economic development would exacerbate our budgetary woes, as lower earnings result in reduced tax collections, further destabilizing the government budget. Budget cuts would put even more strain on vital safety net programs, jeopardizing help for those who need it the most.
There is a greater chance of a fiscal crisis. Interest rates on government borrowing could climb if investors lose faith in the country’s fiscal position, as greater yields are sought to buy such instruments. A rapid increase in Treasury rates could lead to higher inflation, reducing the value of outstanding government securities and resulting in losses for holders of those securities, such as mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, and banks, further destabilizing the US economy and eroding international confidence in the US currency.
National Security Challenges Our budgetary stability is intertwined with our national security and ability to retain a global leadership position. As former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen put it: “Our debt is the most serious danger to our national security.” As the national debt grows, we are not only increasingly reliant on creditors throughout the world, but we also have fewer resources to invest in domestic strength.
The Safety Net is in jeopardy. The safety net and the most vulnerable in our society are jeopardized by America’s huge debt. Those critical programs, as well as the people who need them the most, are jeopardized if our government lacks the resources and stability of a sustainable budget.
Why is GDP a flawed metric?
In reality, “GDP counts everything but that which makes life meaningful,” as Senator Robert F. Kennedy memorably stated. Health, education, equality of opportunity, the state of the environment, and many other measures of quality of life are not included in the number. It does not even assess critical features of the economy, such as its long-term viability, or whether it is on the verge of collapsing. What we measure, however, is important because it directs our actions. The military’s emphasis on “body counts,” or the weekly calculation of the number of enemy soldiers killed, gave Americans a hint of this causal link during the Vietnam War. The US military’s reliance on this morbid statistic led them to conduct operations with no other goal than to increase the body count. The focus on corpse numbers, like a drunk seeking for his keys under a lamppost (because that’s where the light is), blinded us to the greater picture: the massacre was enticing more Vietnamese citizens to join the Viet Cong than American forces were killing.
Now, a different corpse count, COVID-19, is proving to be an alarmingly accurate indicator of society performance. There isn’t much of a link between it and GDP. With a GDP of more than $20 trillion in 2019, the United States is the world’s richest country, implying that we have a highly efficient economic engine, a race vehicle that can outperform any other. However, the United States has had almost 600,000 deaths, but Vietnam, with a GDP of $262 billion (and only 4% of the United States’ GDP per capita), has had less than 500 to far. This less fortunate country has easily defeated us in the fight to save lives.
In fact, the American economy resembles a car whose owner saved money by removing the spare tire, which worked fine until he got a flat. And what I call “GDP thinking”the mistaken belief that increasing GDP will improve well-being on its owngot us into this mess. In the near term, an economy that uses its resources more efficiently has a greater GDP in that quarter or year. At a microeconomic level, attempting to maximize that macroeconomic measure translates to each business decreasing costs in order to obtain the maximum possible short-term profits. However, such a myopic emphasis inevitably jeopardizes the economy’s and society’s long-term performance.
The health-care industry in the United States, for example, took pleasure in efficiently using hospital beds: no bed was left empty. As a result, when SARS-CoV-2 arrived in the United States, there were only 2.8 hospital beds per 1,000 people, significantly fewer than in other sophisticated countries, and the system was unable to cope with the rapid influx of patients. In the short run, doing without paid sick leave in meat-packing facilities improved earnings, which raised GDP. Workers, on the other hand, couldn’t afford to stay at home when they were sick, so they went to work and spread the sickness. Similarly, because China could produce protective masks at a lower cost than the US, importing them enhanced economic efficiency and GDP. However, when the epidemic struck and China required considerably more masks than usual, hospital professionals in the United States were unable to meet the demand. To summarize, the constant pursuit of short-term GDP maximization harmed health care, increased financial and physical insecurity, and weakened economic sustainability and resilience, making Americans more exposed to shocks than inhabitants of other countries.
In the 2000s, the shallowness of GDP thinking had already been apparent. Following the success of the United States in raising GDP in previous decades, European economists encouraged their leaders to adopt American-style economic strategies. However, as symptoms of trouble in the US banking system grew in 2007, France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy learned that any leader who was solely focused on increasing GDP at the expense of other indices of quality of life risked losing the public’s trust. He asked me to chair an international commission on measuring economic performance and social progress in January 2008. How can countries improve their metrics, according to a panel of experts? Sarkozy reasoned that determining what made life valuable was a necessary first step toward improving it.
Our first report, provocatively titled Mismeasuring Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn’t Add Up, was published in 2009, just after the global financial crisis highlighted the need to reassess economic orthodoxy’s key premises. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a think tank that serves 38 advanced countries, decided to follow up with an expert panel after it received such excellent feedback. We confirmed and enlarged our original judgment after six years of dialogue and deliberation: GDP should be dethroned. Instead, each country should choose a “dashboard”a collection of criteria that will guide it toward the future that its citizens desire. The dashboard would include measures for health, sustainability, and any other values that the people of a nation aspired to, as well as inequality, insecurity, and other ills that they intended to reduce, in addition to GDP as a measure of market activity (and no more).
These publications have aided in the formation of a global movement toward improved social and economic indicators. The OECD has adopted the method in its Better Life Initiative, which recommends 11 indicators and gives individuals a way to assess them in relation to other countries to create an index that measures their performance on the issues that matter to them. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), both long-time proponents of GDP thinking, are now paying more attention to the environment, inequality, and the economy’s long-term viability.
This method has even been adopted into the policy-making frameworks of a few countries. In 2019, New Zealand, for example, incorporated “well-being” measures into the country’s budgeting process. “Success is about making New Zealand both a terrific location to make a livelihood and a fantastic place to create a life,” said Grant Robertson, the country’s finance minister. This focus on happiness may have contributed to the country’s victory over COVID-19, which appears to have been contained to around 3,000 cases and 26 deaths in a population of over five million people.