Skip to main content

Stimulus is supposed to be the key to recovery, and governments around the world are embracing it as never before.

But a long-forgotten theory dating back almost 200 years is increasingly weighing on the minds of policy makers: Ricardian equivalence.

Named after the writings of David Ricardo in the early 1820s, the theory suggests that stimulus spending is doomed to failure because taxpayers tend to save their stimulus dollars rather than spend them.

Story continues below advertisement

Their reluctance to spend, according to Ricardo, stems from a basic lack of faith in the government's ability to manage stimulus, and a belief that they will eventually be hit by big tax increases to pay off bulging deficits.

Lately, discussion about Ricardian equivalence is spilling from its normal confines in academia to the offices of Bay Street and Wall Street economists. It even drew a mention last month by Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney, who warned in a speech that "Ricardian effects on consumption" are among the risks to the global recovery.

The Ricardian chatter signals policy makers' and economists' nagging fear that fiscal stimulus will fall flat or even backfire, undermining the global recovery before it has a chance to blossom.

The risk is that despite the hundreds of billions being spent, "the money from Uncle Sam goes into the coffee can instead of being used to buy more coffee," explains David Rosenberg, chief economist and strategist at Gluskin Sheff + Associates Inc. "People see today's stimulus as tomorrow's tax hike."

Last year, U.S. taxpayers saved essentially all the money they got through a federal tax cut. And the recent spike in the U.S. personal savings rate is all Mr. Rosenberg needs to believe Mr. Ricardo had a point. In May, the total Obama administration stimulus was worth $163-billion (U.S.) at annual rates, while consumer spending increased only by $25-billion that month, at annual rates. At the same time, the personal savings rate jumped to a 16-year high of 6.9 per cent of disposable income, up from 5.6 per cent in April and 4.3 per cent in March.

The stimulus, Mr. Rosenberg argues, "does seem like such a complete waste of time" because for every new government dollar, consumer spending rises just 8 cents.

Canadian savings rates have risen, too, but there is not much concern that Ricardian equivalence will render stimulus obsolete here. Canada entered the recession with a strong government balance sheet, so it won't have to use huge tax hikes or spending cuts to bring its budget into balance again in the long run, said economist Nicholas Rowe at Carleton University.

Story continues below advertisement

In addition, monetary policy has been far more effective in Canada than in the United States in injecting some life into the economy, so recovery here is not as dependent on fiscal stimulus as it is in the United States, he said.

Canadian recovery is, however, very dependent on American households spending their stimulus. So if Ricardian equivalence does play out south of the border, the impact could be more than theoretical.

Though updated and modernized by economist Robert Barro in 1974 (and also known as the Barro-Ricardo equivalence proposition), the Ricardo theory has never held much sway among economists.

In fact, Ricardo ultimately rejected the idea.

But many economists have tried, over the centuries, to disprove the theory, and none have succeeded in doing so.

The idea behind the theory - that consumers will not spend their stimulus because they think they will need the money as a cushion against future rough times - is more widely accepted than the Ricardian theory. The hoarding concern is even greater these days, amid rising concern that government-financed pensions won't be able to withstand the crisis and individual households will have to make up the shortfall.

Story continues below advertisement

Now, with President Barack Obama's administration signalling its intention to eventually raise taxes to offset the mounting deficit, taxpayers are almost being encouraged to stash away their stimulus, argues Derek Holt, senior vice-president of economics at Scotia Capital Inc.

"Every theory has its day in the sun and, at this point in time, especially in the United States, it's holding true," Mr. Holt said.

And loud talk about the need for fiscal and monetary "exit strategies" at a time when recovery has not yet taken hold only serves to highlight the reasons why households should start saving more, and could encourage people to do so.

Even if the Ricardian connection between hoarding and the announcement of exit strategies is tenuous, it's not worth taking the risk, adds Avery Shenfeld, chief economist at CIBC World Markets.

"There's no point waking up a hibernating Barro by talking too much, too soon, about a budget tightening ahead," he said.

WHO WAS DAVID RICARDO?

Story continues below advertisement

Born in London in 1772, the third child of 17, to a family who had relocated from Holland. Died in 1823. At 14, began working for his father at the London Stock Exchange, and quickly proved he had a knack for the trade. At the urging of his friend James Mill (father of utilitarianism-founder John Stuart Mill) he began writing newspaper articles on his views in 1809. He became friends with Rev. Thomas Robert Malthus and through correspondence, they debated each other's views on the possibility of a "general glut" - an excess supply of all goods - in an economy.

In 1815, he published his groundbreaking essay "On Profits," where he formulated his theory of distribution in a one-commodity economy. In 1817, wrote "Principles of political economy and taxation," where he explored value theory. In "Essay on the funding system" in 1820, he introduced Ricardian Equivalence, but later rejected his own idea.

Source: EconomyProfessor.com

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Tickers mentioned in this story
Unchecking box will stop auto data updates
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Cannabis pro newsletter