Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Distribution, capital intensity and public debt-to-GDP ratio: an input output—stock flow consistent model

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Economia Politica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper analyzes the relationship between the interest rate and the public debt-to-GDP ratio through the lens of the Classical-Keynesian approach. We focus on the value dimension as a transmission channel of monetary policy, modeling how a change in the interest rate set by the central bank affects the economy’s capital intensity and, in turn, debt ratios. We do so by developing a Stock-Flow Consistent Supermultiplier model (SFC-SM) based on a simplified Input–Output structure of production, showing that the effect of an increase in the interest rate on public debt-to-GDP ratio will depend on the impact exerted by the shock on the capital intensity through changes in relative prices. Lastly, we calibrate the model, showing the possible emergence of reverse capital deepening; past a threshold, any base rate hike produces an increase in the public debt-to-GDP ratio by decreasing the capital intensity of the economy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data presented in this study are openly accessible and available for public use. The complete dataset is available upon request.

Notes

  1. On the one hand, the interest rate positively affects GDP and fiscal revenues by raising the income generated on the stock of wealth and, as a result, the level of consumption and investment. On the other hand, it expands the public debt service. The conditions under which the net effect on the public debt-to-GDP ratio is positive or negative have been studied in Di Domenico (2022).

  2. The normal degree of capacity utilization can be defined in accordance with demand average and peaks. Since movements in demand can be transitory, firms are assumed to gradually adapt their capacity to meet demand peaks while avoiding excess capacity above those peaks (Ciccone 1986).

  3. It is worth noting that this assumption can be easily relaxed, as the share of retained profits to finance investment only affects the value of the multiplier and the GDP level.

  4. Autonomous demand components can be defined as those expenditure items that do not create production capacity and that are financed through the creation of discretionary and autonomous injection of purchasing power in the economy (Cesaratto et al., 2003). For an empirical estimation of multipliers associated with autonomous demand components (i.e. exports, government expenditure, credit-financed consumption, and private residential investment) while controlling for monetary policy, see Barbieri Góes and Deleidi (2022). For an in-depth theoretical and empirical overview on the transmission channels of monetary policy through housing prices and autonomous consumption see Barbieri Góes (2023).

  5. For a similar treatment of capital dynamics, see Fazzari et al. (2020).

  6. See Di Domenico (2020) for an explanation on computation of amortization, profits, and unit cost.

  7. The price takes into account a depreciation up to z periods.

  8. It is important to notice that these simplifying assumptions are useful to isolate the effect of interest rate shocks on the value dimension. However, this is not meant to deny the existence and relevance of real effects. The interested reader might refer to Di Domenico (2022) for an in-depth analysis of this channel.

  9. It ought to be noted that the calibration is not carried to match a particular time frequency, hindering the interpretation of (logical) time units as movements in historical time as in Gallo (2022, 2023).

  10. It ought to be noted that the model postulates that an increase in the interest rate has always a negative effect on the labor share, regardless of the parameter calibration. This might be counterintuitive from the standpoint of standard macroeconomic analysis, according to which an increase in the price of capital engenders a substitution between capital and labour, that leads in turn to an increase in the labour share. However, since industrial markups are given, an increase in the cost of capital goods will be passed on to prices, changing the structure of relative prices at the expense of wage earners (Pivetti, 1985).

  11. The capital-to-output ratio enters both in the price equations and the investment function. Thus, it simultaneously modifies the value of the multiplier and capital intensity. In this case, it is not possible to isolate the mechanism operating through the value dimension.

  12. For multipliers computation in the model, see Appendix 5.

References

  • Andrews, P. W. S. (1949). Manufacturing business. Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, P. W. S., & Brunner, E. (1975). Studies in pricing. Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri Góes, M. C. (2023). A tale of three prices: Monetary policy and autonomous consumption in the US. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 67, 115–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbieri Góes, M. C., & Deleidi, M. (2022). Output determination and autonomous demand multipliers: An empirical investigation for the US economy. Economic Modelling, 116, 106004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernanke, B. S. (2010). Central bank independence, transparency, and accountability. In Speech at the Institute for Monetary and Economic Studies International Conference, Bank of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, May 2010 (Vol. 25).

  • Cesaratto, S., Serrano, F., & Stirati, A. (2003). Technical change, effective demand and employment. Review of Political Economy, 15(1), 33–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciccone, R. (1986). Accumulation and capacity utilization: Some critical considerations on Joan Robinson’s theory of distribution. Political Economy, 2(1), 17–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corsetti, G., Meier, A., & Müller, G. J. (2012). What determines government spending multipliers? Economic Policy, 27(72), 521–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Ippolito, G. (1987). Probabilità di perverso comportamento del capitale al variare del saggio di profitto. Il Modello Embrionale a Due Settori, Note Economiche, 2, 5–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deleidi, M. (2018). Post Keynesian endogenous money theory: A theoretical and empirical investigation of the credit demand schedule. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 41(2), 185–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Domar, E. D. (1944). The “Burden of the Debt” and the National Income. The American Economic Review, 34(4), 798–827.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Domenico L. (2020). Business cycle and growth in a monetary economy of production: the impact of fiscal and monetary policies on long-run output and public finance, Doctoral Thesis. University of Roma Tre.

  • Di Domenico, L. (2022). Stability and determinants of the public debt-to-GDP ratio: a Stock-Flow Consistent investigation. Quaderni del Dipartimento di Economia Politica e Statistica, n.888.

  • Fazzari, S. M., Ferri, P., & Variato, A. M. (2020). Demand-led growth and accommodating supply. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 44(3), 583–605.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke, R. (1996). A Metzlerian model of inventory growth cycles. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 7(2), 243–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallo, E. (2022). When is the long run?—Historical time and adjustment periods in demand-led growth models. Metroeconomica, 73(4), 1155–1178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallo, E. (2023). How short is the short run in the Neo-Kaleckian growth model? Review of Political Economy, 35(3), 687–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garegnani, P. (1970). Heterogeneous capital, the production function and the theory of distribution. Review of Economic Studies., 37, 407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garegnani, P. (2015). The problem of effective demand in Italian economic development: On the factors that determine the volume of investment. Review of Political Economy, 27(2), 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godley, W., & Lavoie, M. (2006). Monetary economics: An integrated approach to credit, money, income, production and wealth. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grasselli, M. R., & Nguyen-Huu, A. (2018). Inventory growth cycles with debt-financed investment. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 44, 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hicks, J. (1965). Capital and growth. Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavoie, M. (2014). Post-Keynesian economics: New foundations. Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Leontief, W. (Ed.). (1986). Input-output economics. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metzler, L. A. (1941). The nature and stability of inventory cycles. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 23(3), 113–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panico, C. (1988). Marx on the banking sector and the interest rate: some notes for a discussion. Science & Society, 52(3), 310–325.

  • Panico, C. (1985). Market forces and the relation between the rates of interest and profits. Contributions to Political Economy, 4(1), 37–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasinetti, L. L. (1975). Lezioni di teoria della produzione (pp. 1–379). Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pivetti, M. (1985). On the monetary explanation of distribution. Political Economy, 1(2), 73–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. A. (1962). Parable and realism in capital theory: The surrogate production function. The Review of Economic Studies, 29(3), 193–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sraffa, P. (1960). Production of commodities by means of commodities (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, J. (1982). Money and finance in the macroeconomic process. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 14(2), 171–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was funded by Ministero dell’Istruzione,dell’Università e della Ricerca with grant number PRIN 2017-4BE543.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lorenzo Di Domenico.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1. Balance sheet and transaction matrix

Balance sheet and transaction matrix

Assets

Workers

Capitalists

Sector A

Sector B

Sector C

Bank

Government

CB

\(\sum\)

Check deposits

\({+M1}_{w}\)

\({+M1}_{cap}\)

\({+M1}_{a}\)

\({+M1}_{c}\)

\({+M1}_{c}\)

\(-M1\)

  

0

Time deposits

\(+{M1}_{w}\)

\(+{M1}_{cap}\)

   

\(-M2\)

  

0

HPM

     

\(+{H}_{b}\)

 

\(-H\)

0

Advances

     

\(-A\)

 

\(-A\)

0

Loans

  

\(-{L}_{a}\)

\(-{L}_{b}\)

\(-{L}_{c}\)

\(+L\)

  

0

Fixed Capital

  

\(+{K}_{{f}_{a}}\)

\(+{K}_{{f}_{b}}\)

\(+{K}_{{f}_{c}}\)

   

\(+{K}_{f}\)

Public bonds

 

\(+{B}_{h,cap}\)

    

\(-B\)

\(+{B}_{cb}\)

0

Net wealth

\({-V}_{h,w}\)

\({-V}_{h,cap}\)

\(-{V}_{a}\)

\(-{V}_{b}\)

\(-{V}_{c}\)

0

\(+GD\)

0

\(-{K}_{f}\)

\(\sum\)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

 

Workers

Capitalists

Sector A

Sector B

Sector C

Government

Bank

Central Bank

\(\sum\)

       

Current

Capital

Current

Capital

 

Consumption

\(-{C}_{w}\)

\(-{C}_{cap}\)

  

\(+C\)

     

0

Investments in A

  

\(+I\)

\(-{I}_{b}\)

\(-{I}_{c}\)

     

0

Investments in B

  

\(-{I}_{a}\)

\(+I\)

      

0

Public expenditure

    

\(+G\)

\(-G\)

    

0

Wages

\(+W\)

 

\(-{W}_{a}\)

\(-{W}_{b}\)

\(-{W}_{c}\)

     

0

Taxes

\(-{T}_{w}\)

\(-{T}_{cap}\)

   

\(+T\)

    

0

Profits

 

\(+{Div}_{F}\)

\(-{Div}_{a}\)

\(-{Div}_{b}\)

\(-{Div}_{c}\)

     

0

Profits B

 

\(+{Div}_{B}\)

    

\(-{Div}_{B}\)

   

0

Profits BC

     

\({+F}_{cb}\)

  

\({-F}_{cb}\)

 

0

Int. Deposit

\(+{r}_{m,t-1}{M2}_{w,t-1}\)

\(+{r}_{m,t-1}{M2}_{c,t-1}\)

    

\(-{r}_{m,t-1}{M2}_{t-1}\)

   

0

Int. Loans

  

\(-{r}_{l-1}{L}_{a,t-1}\)

\(-{r}_{l-1}{L}_{b,t-1}\)

\(-{r}_{l-1}{L}_{c,t-1}\)

 

\(+{r}_{l-1}{L}_{t-1}\)

   

0

Int. Bond

 

\(+{i}_{t-1}{B}_{h,t-1}\)

   

\(-{i}_{t-1}{B}_{t-1}\)

  

\(+{i}_{r}{B}_{bc,t-1}\)

 

0

Int. Reserves

      

\(+{r}_{r-1}{H}_{t-1}\)

 

\(-{r}_{r-1}{H}_{t-1}\)

 

0

Int. Advances

      

\(-{r}_{a,t-1}{A}_{t-1}\)

 

\(+{r}_{a,t-1}{A}_{t-1}\)

 

0

∆Deposit time

\(-{\Delta M2}_{w}\)

\(-{\Delta M2}_{cap}\)

     

\(+\Delta M2\)

  

0

∆ Deposit check

\(-{\Delta M1}_{w}\)

\(-{\Delta M1}_{w}\)

     

\(+\Delta M1\)

  

0

∆ Loans

  

\(+{\Delta L}_{a}\)

\(+{\Delta L}_{b}\)

\(+{\Delta L}_{c}\)

  

\(-\Delta L\)

  

0

∆ Bonds

 

\(-{\Delta B}_{h}\)

   

\(+\Delta B\)

  

\({-\Delta B}_{bc}\)

 

0

∆ Reserves

       

\(-\Delta H\)

\(+\Delta H\)

 

0

\(\sum\)

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Appendix 2. Data sources

All weblinks last accessed on November 20, 2022.

Appendix 3. Parameter values and steady-state results

See Table 1

Table 1 Parameter values

Appendix 4. Reverse capital deepening and the public debt-to-GDP ratio

As discussed in Sect. 4, the model is able to generate the phenomenon of reverse capital deepening. Consistently with the argument exposed in the paper, an increase in the interest rate would then lead to a decrease in the public debt-to-GDP ratio. Under these circumstances, the model exhibits the motion shown in Fig. 6.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Impact of an increase in interest rate on macroeconomic variables

Appendix 5. Computation of intersectoral multipliers

The intersectoral multipliers can be computed adopting the Leontief Inverse matrix (L):

$${L=\left(I-A\right)}^{-1}={\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& -\vartheta & 0\\ -\beta & 1& 0\\ -\gamma & 0& 1\end{array}\right]}^{-1}=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{1}{1-\vartheta \beta }& \frac{\alpha }{1-\vartheta \beta }& 0\\ \frac{\beta }{1-\vartheta \beta }& \frac{1}{1-\vartheta \beta }& 0\\ \frac{\gamma }{1-\vartheta \beta }& \frac{\alpha \gamma }{1-\vartheta \beta }& 1\end{array}\right]$$

To produce one unit of consumer good it is required to produce a gross amount of A and B equal to:

$${m}_{a}=\frac{1+\beta +\gamma }{1-\alpha \beta }$$
$${m}_{b}=\frac{1+\alpha (1+\gamma )}{1-\alpha \beta }$$

If the ratio \(\frac{{m}_{a}}{{m}_{b}}=\frac{1+\beta +\gamma }{1+\alpha (1+\gamma )}\) is higher than one, basic commodity A has the highest intersectoral multiplier, the opposite applies if the ratio is lower than one.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Di Domenico, L., Góes, M.C.B. & Gallo, E. Distribution, capital intensity and public debt-to-GDP ratio: an input output—stock flow consistent model. Econ Polit (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-023-00318-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40888-023-00318-7

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation