## 1. Debt Dynamics and Primary Surpluses that Stabilize the Debt Ratio for Lebanon

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [1. Debt Dynamics and Primary Surpluses that Stabilize the Debt Ratio for Lebanon](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/_wp09190.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/_wp09190.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/_wp09190.pdf.json)

---

### Debt dynamics
- The path of the debt-to-GDP ratio depends on the relationship between the real interest rate and real GDP growth.
- In the presence of remittances, the relevant denominator becomes GDP plus remittances; the dynamic depends on the real growth rate of GDP plus remittances (a weighted average of real GDP growth and real remittance growth).
- Associated figure referenced: "Figure 1. Lebanon: Debt Dynamics" (location: page 15).

### Channels through which remittances affect debt sustainability
- Higher tax base:
  - Remittances increase consumption of domestic and imported goods, increasing revenues from consumption- and trade-based taxation.
  - Approximately half of revenues in developing countries derive from consumption and production taxes (Gordon and Li, 2006).
- Seigniorage:
  - If remittances raise demand for banking sector liabilities, demand for money rises and, for a given inflation rate, seigniorage revenue increases.
- Higher private savings:
  - Remittances can raise bank deposits; with marginal propensity to consume < 1, remittances increase private savings that can be intermediated into government bond purchases.

### Conceptual contribution: measure of the revenue base
- Argument: traditional debt-to-GDP normalization may understate or overstate debt sustainability for remittance-receiving countries.
- Proposed refined base: GDP plus remittances (rather than GDP or GNDI), because GNDI includes flows that may not represent the domestic potential revenue base.
- Gross remittance inflows (not net) are examined because remittances remitted to the receiving country are what enter the receiving-country revenue base.

### Formal change to debt dynamics (high-level)
- When remittances are included in the denominator, the primary surplus-to-GDP ratio that stabilizes the debt ratio depends critically on the relative real growth rates of remittances and real GDP.
- Key logical results:
  - If the real growth rate of remittances exceeds the real growth rate of GDP:
    - The primary surplus-to-GDP ratio that stabilizes the debt-to-(GDP+Rem) ratio will be less than the primary surplus-to-GDP ratio that stabilizes the debt-to-GDP ratio.
    - The primary surplus-to-GDP ratio that reduces debt-to-(GDP+Rem) by a given percentage over N years will be less than that required to reduce debt-to-GDP by the same percentage.
  - Conversely, if remittance growth is below GDP growth, the inequalities reverse: greater fiscal effort is required when using GDP plus remittances.

### Application: Lebanon (empirical illustration)
- Context and magnitudes:
  - Gross remittance inflows to Lebanon estimated at 20 percent of GDP in 2008.
  - About 54 percent of these inflows originate in the GCC; 16 percent from the United States, Canada, and Australia.
  - Central government gross debt: about 150 percent of GDP in 2000; 162.5 percent of GDP in 2008; projected decline from 161.9 percent of GDP in 2009 to 136.4 percent of GDP in 2014 (IMF, 2009 projections, Table 1 & Figure 1).
- Historical behavior (2001–2008):
  - The primary balance-to-GDP ratio required to stabilize debt-to-GDP is larger than that required to stabilize debt-to-(GDP+Rem), because real remittance growth exceeded real GDP growth for most of the period (exceptions: 2005, 2007, 2008).

#### Scenario design for projections (2009–2014)
- Assumed real GDP growth path:
  - 8.5 percent in 2008; projected 3.0 percent in 2009; projected 4.0, 4.0, 4.5, 4.5, 4.5 percent for 2010–2014.
- Remittance scenarios:
  - Scenario 1 (resilient remittances): real remittance growth = 6.0 percent each year (roughly the 2000–2008 average).
  - Scenario 2 (large 2009 shock, slow recovery): real remittance growth = -15.9 percent in 2009, then 0.0 percent thereafter.
  - Scenario 3 (2009 shock, medium rebound): real remittance growth = -15.9 percent in 2009, then 5.9, 4.9, 6.0, 4.2, 4.7 percent for 2010–2014 respectively.

#### Stabilizing debt at 2008 level (162.5 percent of GDP) in 2009
- To stabilize Debt/GDP at its 2008 value in 2009 requires a primary deficit of about 0.2 percent of GDP.
- To stabilize Debt/(GDP+Rem) in 2009:
  - Under scenarios 2 and 3 (remittance decline in 2009): requires a primary surplus of 4.8 percent of GDP.
  - Under scenario 1 (remittances resilient): requires a primary deficit of 0.9 percent of GDP.

#### Over 2010–2014
- Under scenario 1 and scenario 3, real remittance growth generally exceeds projected real GDP growth; therefore the primary surplus-to-GDP ratio that stabilizes Debt/(GDP+Rem) is less than that required to stabilize Debt/GDP.
- Under scenario 2, real remittance growth is less than real GDP growth; hence the primary surplus-to-GDP ratio that stabilizes Debt/(GDP+Rem) exceeds that for Debt/GDP.

#### Targeting a lower debt level (reduce debt ratio by 30% in 2014 relative to 2008)
- Required constant annual primary surplus (2009–2014) to reduce debt by 30% relative to 2008:
  - For Debt/GDP: 7.2 percent of GDP.
  - For Debt/(GDP+Rem):
    - Scenario 1: 6.9 percent of GDP (Table 2 reports 6.8 for 2008 then 6.9 annually 2009–2014 in table layout).
    - Scenario 2: values on the order of 8.1–8.4 percent of GDP (Table 2 reports entries 8.4 then 8.3,... aggregate path averages ~8.1–8.4).
    - Scenario 3: 7.7 percent of GDP.
- Implications:
  - If remittances grow faster than GDP (scenario 1), relying on GDP alone could lead authorities to implement unnecessarily tighter fiscal adjustment than required to hit the target.
  - If remittances fall sharply (scenario 2), relying on GDP alone can cause an understatement of required fiscal adjustment; the cumulative understatement (relative to scenario 2) is reported as 6.1 percent of GDP over 2009–2014.
  - Under scenario 3, the projected negative impact in 2009 requires an additional cumulative fiscal adjustment of about 3 percent of GDP to achieve the 30 percent reduction target.

#### Illustrative point
- The path and growth rate of remittances, not just their level, determine how inclusion of remittances affects required fiscal effort.

### Policy and analytical implications
- Inclusion of remittances in debt sustainability metrics alters the amount of fiscal adjustment needed to place debt on a sustainable path; the decisive factor is the relative real growth rates of remittances and real GDP.
- Remittance-dependent countries should consider assessing fiscal stance and debt sustainability using multiple metrics (e.g., debt-to-GDP and debt-to-(GDP+Rem)).
- The treatment of remittances matters especially under global shocks that differentially affect remittance-sending countries (e.g., the 2007–2009 global financial crisis).
- Understanding remittances’ macroeconomic role remains important due to ongoing globalization, labor mobility, and international integration.

### Key statistics and exact figures
- Global remittances estimate: $135 billion.
- Lebanon remittances: 20 percent of GDP in 2008.
- Lebanon central government gross debt: 150 percent of GDP in 2000; 162.5 percent of GDP in 2008; projected 161.9 percent of GDP in 2009; projected 136.4 percent of GDP in 2014.
- Real GDP growth: 8.5 percent in 2008; projected 3.0 percent in 2009; projected 4.0, 4.0, 4.5, 4.5, 4.5 percent for 2010–2014.
- Remittance growth scenarios:
  - Scenario 1: 6.0 percent (2009–2014).
  - Scenario 2: -15.9 percent in 2009, then 0.0 percent thereafter.
  - Scenario 3: -15.9 percent in 2009, then 5.9, 4.9, 6.0, 4.2, 4.7 percent for 2010–2014.
- Stabilizing debt in 2009 at 2008 level:
  - Primary deficit of about 0.2 percent of GDP to stabilize Debt/GDP.
  - Primary surplus of 4.8 percent of GDP required to stabilize Debt/(GDP+Rem) under scenarios 2 and 3.
  - Primary deficit of 0.9 percent of GDP required to stabilize Debt/(GDP+Rem) under scenario 1.
- Reducing debt-to-GDP by 30% (2009–2014 constant annual primary surplus):
  - Required for Debt/GDP: 7.2 percent of GDP.
  - Required for Debt/(GDP+Rem)_1: 6.9 percent of GDP.
  - Required for Debt/(GDP+Rem)_2: values on the order of 8.1–8.4 percent of GDP.
  - Required for Debt/(GDP+Rem)_3: 7.7 percent of GDP.
- Cumulative understatement/adjustment comparisons:
  - Understatement of required adjustment (scenario 2) relative to GDP-only measure: 6.1 percent of GDP over 2009–2014.
  - Additional cumulative fiscal adjustment needed under scenario 3 relative to GDP-only path: about 3 percent of GDP.

### Conclusion
- Remittances can legitimately be treated as part of a receiving country’s potential tax base, but their inclusion in sustainability analysis changes required fiscal targets depending on remittance growth dynamics.
- Debt sustainability analysis for remittance-dependent economies should account explicitly for remittances and their growth behavior; relying solely on debt-to-GDP can lead to misestimation of the necessary fiscal effort.
- Continued research on remittances and their macroeconomic implications is warranted given persistent globalization and labor mobility trends.

*Source: _wp09190 - 1. Debt Dynamics and Primary Surpluses that Stabilize the Debt Ratio for Lebanon (pages 15–16) and associated references.*

### 1. Debt Dynamics and Primary Surpluses that Stabilize the Debt Ratio for Lebanon ............15

### 1. Debt Dynamics and Primary Surpluses that Stabilize the Debt Ratio for Lebanon

### Debt dynamics
- Section title: "1. Debt Dynamics and Primary Surpluses that Stabilize the Debt Ratio for Lebanon"
- Associated figure: "Figure 1. Lebanon: Debt Dynamics"
- Location in source: page 15 (as listed)

### Primary surplus required to hit targets
- Section title: "2. Primary Surplus Required to Reduce the Debt Ratio to a Given Target"
- Associated figure: "Figure 2. Lebanon: Primary Surpluses that Stabilize the Debt Ratio"
- Location in source: page 16 (as listed)

*Source: _wp09190 - 1. Debt Dynamics and Primary Surpluses that Stabilize the Debt Ratio for Lebanon ............15*

### References..............................................................................................................

### _wp09190 - References..............................................................................................................

### Introduction and motivation
- Remittance inflows have grown rapidly since the early 1990s and are estimated at $135 billion.
- Since 1998, official remittance inflows are second only to FDI among private inflows and are several times larger than remaining private capital inflows and official aid.
- Micro evidence: remittances reduce poverty and consumption volatility (cited literature: Chami, Fullenkamp, and Jahjah, 2003; World Bank, 2006; IMF, 2005).
- Macro puzzles: remittances pose development challenges for growth and can produce Dutch disease effects.
- Key observation: remittances, though person-to-person and not directly taxable, affect fiscal policy and debt sustainability indirectly through household consumption, saving, seigniorage, and banking deposits.

### Channels through which remittances affect debt sustainability
- Higher tax base:
  - Remittances increase consumption of domestic and imported goods, thereby increasing revenues from consumption- and trade-based taxation.
  - Approximately half of revenues in developing countries derive from consumption and production taxes (Gordon and Li, 2006).
- Seigniorage:
  - If remittances raise demand for banking sector liabilities, demand for money rises and, for a given inflation rate, seigniorage revenue increases.
- Higher private savings:
  - Remittances can raise bank deposits; with marginal propensity to consume < 1, remittances increase private savings that can be intermediated into government bond purchases.

### Conceptual contribution: measure of the revenue base
- Argument: traditional debt-to-GDP normalization may understate or overstate debt sustainability for remittance-receiving countries.
- Proposed refined base: GDP plus remittances (rather than GDP or GNDI), because GNDI includes flows (net factor income, public transfers) that may not represent the domestic potential revenue base.
- Gross remittance inflows (not net) are examined because remittances remitted to the receiving country are what enter the receiving-country revenue base.

### Formal change to debt dynamics (high-level)
- Traditional change in debt-to-GDP (equation notation preserved in source):
  - The path of the debt-to-GDP ratio depends on the relationship between the real interest rate and real GDP growth.
- In presence of remittances, the relevant denominator becomes GDP plus remittances and the dynamic depends on the real growth rate of GDP plus remittances (a weighted average of real GDP growth and real remittance growth).
- Key logical results (formal proofs referenced in Appendix):
  - If the real growth rate of remittances exceeds the real growth rate of GDP:
    - The primary surplus-to-GDP ratio that stabilizes the debt-to-GDP plus remittances ratio will be less than the primary surplus-to-GDP ratio that stabilizes the debt-to-GDP ratio.
    - The primary surplus-to-GDP ratio that reduces debt-to-GDP plus remittances by a given percentage over N years will be less than that required to reduce debt-to-GDP by the same percentage.
  - Conversely, if remittance growth is below GDP growth, the inequalities reverse: greater fiscal effort is required when using GDP plus remittances.

### Application: Lebanon (summary of empirical illustration)
- Context and magnitudes:
  - Gross remittance inflows to Lebanon estimated at 20 percent of GDP in 2008.
  - About 54 percent of these inflows originate in the GCC; 16 percent from the United States, Canada, and Australia.
  - Central government gross debt: about 150 percent of GDP in 2000; 162.5 percent of GDP in 2008; projected decline from 161.9 percent of GDP in 2009 to 136.4 percent of GDP in 2014 (IMF, 2009 projections, Table 1 & Figure 1).
- Historical behavior (2001-2008): primary balance-to-GDP ratio required to stabilize debt-to-GDP is larger than that required to stabilize debt-to-GDP plus remittances, because real remittance growth exceeded real GDP growth for most of the period (exceptions: 2005, 2007, 2008).
- Scenario design for projections (2009–2014), given sharp global slowdown assumptions:
  - Real GDP growth projected to fall to 3.0 percent in 2009 from 8.5 percent in 2008; subsequent real GDP growth projections: 4.0, 4.0, 4.5, 4.5, 4.5 (2010–2014).
  - Scenario 1 (resilient remittances): real remittance growth = 6.0 percent each year (roughly the 2000–2008 average).
  - Scenario 2 (large 2009 shock, slow recovery): real remittance growth = -15.9 percent in 2009, then 0.0 percent thereafter.
  - Scenario 3 (2009 shock, medium rebound): real remittance growth = -15.9 percent in 2009, then 5.9, 4.9, 6.0, 4.2, 4.7 percent for 2010–2014 respectively.
- Stabilizing debt at 2008 level (162.5 percent of GDP):
  - Stabilizing Debt/GDP at its 2008 value in 2009 requires a primary deficit of about 0.2 percent of GDP.
  - Stabilizing Debt/(GDP+Rem) in 2009:
    - Under scenarios 2 and 3 (remittance decline in 2009), requires a primary surplus of 4.8 percent of GDP.
    - Under scenario 1 (remittances resilient), requires a primary deficit of 0.9 percent of GDP (i.e., remittances provide a buffer).
- Over 2010–2014:
  - Under scenario 1 and scenario 3, real remittance growth generally exceeds projected real GDP growth; therefore, the primary surplus-to-GDP ratio that stabilizes Debt/(GDP+Rem) is less than that required to stabilize Debt/GDP.
  - Under scenario 2, real remittance growth is less than real GDP growth; hence the primary surplus-to-GDP ratio that stabilizes Debt/(GDP+Rem) exceeds that for Debt/GDP.
- Targeting a lower debt level (reduce debt ratio by 30% in 2014 relative to 2008):
  - Primary surplus required to reduce Debt/GDP by 30% (constant annual path 2009–2014): 7.2 percent of GDP.
  - Primary surplus required to reduce Debt/(GDP+Rem) by 30%:
    - Scenario 1: 6.9 percent of GDP (path reported as 6.8 then 6.9 values; Table 2 reports 6.8 for 2008 then 6.9 annually 2009–2014 in the table layout).
    - Scenario 2: ~8.1–8.4 percent of GDP (Table 2 reports values 8.4 then 8.3,... aggregate path averages ~8.1–8.4; exact entries preserved in Table 2).
    - Scenario 3: 7.7 percent of GDP.
  - Implications:
    - If remittances grow faster than GDP (scenario 1), relying on GDP alone could lead authorities to implement unnecessarily tighter fiscal adjustment than required to hit the target.
    - If remittances fall sharply (scenario 2), relying on GDP alone can cause an understatement of required fiscal adjustment; the cumulative understatement (relative to scenario 2) is reported as 6.1 percent of GDP over 2009–2014.
    - Under scenario 3, projected negative impact in 2009 requires an additional cumulative fiscal adjustment of about 3 percent of GDP to achieve the 30 percent reduction target.
- Illustrative point: the path and growth rate of remittances, not just their level, determine how inclusion of remittances affects required fiscal effort.

### Policy and analytical implications (summary)
- The inclusion of remittances in debt sustainability metrics alters the amount of fiscal adjustment needed to place debt on a sustainable path; the decisive factor is the relative real growth rates of remittances and real GDP.
- Remittance-dependent countries should consider assessing fiscal stance and debt sustainability using multiple metrics (e.g., debt-to-GDP and debt-to-GDP plus remittances).
- The treatment of remittances matters especially under global shocks that differentially affect remittance-sending countries (e.g., the 2007–2009 global financial crisis).
- Understanding remittances’ macroeconomic role remains important due to ongoing globalization, labor mobility, and international integration.

### Key statistics and exact figures (preserved)
- Global remittances estimate: $135 billion.
- Lebanon remittances: 20 percent of GDP in 2008.
- Lebanon central government gross debt: 150 percent of GDP in 2000; 162.5 percent of GDP in 2008; projected 161.9 percent of GDP in 2009; projected 136.4 percent of GDP in 2014.
- Real GDP growth: 8.5 percent in 2008; projected 3.0 percent in 2009; projected 4.0, 4.0, 4.5, 4.5, 4.5 percent for 2010–2014.
- Remittance growth scenarios:
  - Scenario 1: 6.0 percent (2009–2014).
  - Scenario 2: -15.9 percent in 2009, then 0.0 percent thereafter.
  - Scenario 3: -15.9 percent in 2009, then 5.9, 4.9, 6.0, 4.2, 4.7 percent for 2010–2014.
- Stabilizing debt in 2009 at 2008 level:
  - Primary deficit of about 0.2 percent of GDP to stabilize Debt/GDP.
  - Primary surplus of 4.8 percent of GDP required to stabilize Debt/(GDP+Rem) under scenarios 2 and 3.
  - Primary deficit of 0.9 percent of GDP required to stabilize Debt/(GDP+Rem) under scenario 1.
- Reducing debt-to-GDP by 30% (2009–2014 constant annual primary surplus):
  - Required for Debt/GDP: 7.2 percent of GDP.
  - Required for Debt/(GDP+Rem)_1: 6.9 percent of GDP (Table 2 entries).
  - Required for Debt/(GDP+Rem)_2: values on the order of 8.1–8.4 percent of GDP (Table 2 entries).
  - Required for Debt/(GDP+Rem)_3: 7.7 percent of GDP.
- Cumulative understatement/adjustment comparisons:
  - Understatement of required adjustment (scenario 2) relative to GDP-only measure: 6.1 percent of GDP over 2009–2014.
  - Additional cumulative fiscal adjustment needed under scenario 3 relative to GDP-only path: about 3 percent of GDP.

### Conclusion
- Remittances can legitimately be treated as part of a receiving country’s potential tax base, but their inclusion in sustainability analysis changes required fiscal targets depending on remittance growth dynamics.
- The paper’s main message: debt sustainability analysis for remittance-dependent economies should account explicitly for remittances and their growth behavior; relying solely on debt-to-GDP can lead to misestimation of the necessary fiscal effort.
- Continued research on remittances and their macroeconomic implications is warranted given persistent globalization and labor mobility trends.

*Source: _wp09190 - References..............................................................................................................*

### References

### References

### Working papers and academic articles
- Acosta, P. A., E. Lartey, and F. Mandelman, 2007, “Remittances and the Dutch Disease”, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Working Paper 2007-8.
- Barrajas A, R. Chami, C. Fullenkamp, M. Gapen, and P. Montiel, 2009, “Do Workers’ Remittances Promote Economic Development?” IMF Working Paper 09/153 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
- Chami, R., A. Barajas, T. Cosimano, C. Fullenkamp, M. Gapen, and P. Montiel, 2008, “Macroeconomic Consequences of Remittances”, IMF Occasional Paper (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
- Chami, R., T.F. Cosimano, and M. Gapen, 2006, “Beware of Emigrants Bearing Gifts: Optimal Fiscal and Monetary Policy in the Presence of Remittances”, IMF Working Papers 06/61 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
- Chami, R., C. Fullenkamp, and S. Jahjah, 2003, "Are Immigrant Remittance Flows a Source of Capital for Development?", IMF Working Papers 03/189 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
- Montiel, Peter J. 2006, “Workers’ Remittances and the Long-Run Equilibrium Real Exchange Rate: Analytical Issues,” Williams College, mimeo.
- Gordon, Roger and Wei Li, 2006. “Tax Structures in Developing Countries: Many Puzzles and a Possible Explanation.” November.

### Institutional reports and books
- International Monetary Fund, 2009, Lebanon: 2009 Article IV Consultation and Assessment of Performance Under the Program Supported by Emergency Post-Conflict Assistance – Staff Report (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
- International Monetary Fund, 2005, World Economic Outlook, April 2005: Globalization and External Imbalances, World Economic and Financial Surveys (Washington).
- World Bank, 2006, Global Economic Prospects: Economic Implications of Remittances and Migration (Washington: The World Bank).

*Source: _wp09190 - References*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2009/_wp09190.pdf_