## 1. Descriptive Statistics

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [1. Descriptive Statistics](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/_wp12230.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/_wp12230.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/_wp12230.pdf.json)

---

### Context and recent history
- The 2008 global financial crisis caused widespread large deficits and swelling public debt as output collapsed in many countries.
- The IMF (2012) estimated that the level of public debt for advanced countries increased from about 75 percent of GDP before the crisis to above 100 percent of GDP in 2011, a level unseen since the Second World War.
- The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that federal public debt would rise to above 70 percent of GDP by end-2012 from 36 percent at end-2007.
- The IMF (2012), using general government data, estimates the debt ratio to increase to about 107 percent of GDP in 2012 from 67 percent at end-2007.
- The federal deficit rose from about 1 percent of GDP to 10 percent in 2009 and is estimated at about 7.5 percent in 2012.
- In the U.S., by mid-2012 the unemployment rate had declined to 8.3 percent from the end-2009 peak of 9.9 percent.

### Policy options for reducing public debt (themes discussed)
- Fiscal consolidation (austerity), growth, inflation, or low interest rates are elements of a debt-reduction strategy from the debt dynamics equation.
- In an environment of weak domestic growth and the zero-interest rate bound, fiscal consolidation could prove to be self-defeating.
- Stimulating growth could improve both debt dynamics and fiscal balance by increasing revenues; “bang for the buck” strategies are required to raise short-run growth without substantially adding to public debt.
- Higher inflation and “financial repression” measures—such as regulations on capital movements and interest rates—are other possibilities to reduce debt.
- Financial repression can keep the interest rate low and was found to be more successful in reducing debt when accompanied by inflation, but allowing a higher inflation target would require a radical change in monetary policy.

### Empirical framework and methodological approach
- The paper uses a modified VAR framework in the tradition of Sims (1980) that includes a separate debt equation as in Favero and Giavazzi (2007, 2009).
- The VAR model includes the debt-to-GDP ratio (and its lags) as an exogenous variable and the macro aggregates that are part of the debt equation as endogenous variables, thereby accounting for the reaction of agents to changes in the level of public debt.
- A separate deterministic debt equation keeps track of debt dynamics; computed impulse responses incorporate the dynamic effect of the debt-to-GDP ratio, feeding from the debt equation, on macro aggregates that in turn affect the debt ratio going forward.
- The specification—a VAR with debt feedback—yields a stationary debt ratio, whereas VARs excluding debt could imply an explosive debt path.
- Accounting for the effect of debt on macroeconomic aggregates introduces nonlinearity into VARs, implying that the economic environment (initial conditions) could matter for outcomes; median impulse responses are not substantially altered by changes in initial conditions, but uncertainty around the median path can be dramatically affected.

### Key empirical findings and projections
- If the economy continues to behave as in the recent past (1980-2007 period), the debt ratio is expected to converge to its long-term average of about 40 percent of GDP, and deviations resulting from macroeconomic shocks are temporary.
- The public debt ratio falls in response to primary surplus shocks, then returns to its pre-shock path.
- Following an exogenous primary surplus shock of 1 percent of GDP, the debt ratio falls by about 4.5 percent of GDP in about 3 years.
- Fiscal consolidation would continue beyond the initial shock—primary surpluses of cumulative 5.5 percent of GDP are run within 3 years, thus lowering the debt ratio. The resulting (text truncated in source).

### Key findings on austerity, growth, inflation, and debt dynamics
- Austerity shock (narrative identification of primary balance shocks) does not have a statistically significant effect on the debt ratio; uncertainty around the median path is substantial, especially in a weak economy.
- There is a 25 percent chance that the debt ratio could increase in the first few years following an austerity shock as growth deteriorates.
- In recessionary times, where fiscal multipliers are larger, an austerity shock might result in an increasing debt ratio; austerity shocks could be self-defeating.
- Under initial conditions prevailing in 2011 (a weak economy, low interest rates and inflation, large deficit, and rising debt), confidence bands are wider and risks to a self-defeating austerity shock are much higher than in “normal” times.
- An inflation shock results in an increasing debt ratio after only a few quarters (under post-1980 dynamics), despite a fall of about 0.5 percent of GDP on impact.
- A positive shock to growth reduces public debt substantially: a 1 percentage point increase in growth rate reduces the debt ratio by around 1.5 percent of GDP in 3 years.
- The debt ratio eventually declines over time when starting at a high level of debt in the authors’ model; the future debt path may already incorporate debt-reducing dynamics of the past, implying some austerity shocks may be unnecessary.

### Quantified impulse-response results (austerity and other shocks)
- A one standard deviation increase in the primary surplus equals 0.11 percent of GDP (scaled in the narrative approach to match Blanchard-Perotti).
- All identification schemes indicate the debt ratio falls by about 0.5-0.75 percent of GDP in about 2.5-3 years after the austerity shock, then rises and converges to the pre-shock baseline sometime after 10 years.
- A 1 percent inflation shock (post-1980 dynamics) could lead to a rise of the debt ratio within a few quarters despite an impact fall of about 0.5 percent of GDP.
- Hall and Sargent (1946–1974 reference): about 23 percent of the debt reduction from 1946 to 1974 was due to inflation (as cited in related literature).
- Aizenman and Marion: an inflation of 6 percent could reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio by about 20 percent over 4 years (cited literature).

### Model specification and numerical setup
- Endogenous VAR vector Y includes: primary deficit-to-GDP ratio (pb), real GDP growth rate (g), inflation rate based on the GDP deflator (π), and nominal average interest rate based on interest payments on debt (i).
- Debt-to-GDP ratio (d) enters as an exogenous variable in the VAR and is governed by the debt equation (2).
- Lags used: k = 2 and l = 4 (2;4 = lk).
- Debt dynamics equation: d_t = ( (1 + i_t) / (1 + π_t + g_t) ) d_{t-1} + pb_t  (as presented in equation (2) form).
- Impulse responses are computed as conditional expectations (GIR-like) and defined using equation (3): IR_{t+1,...,t+n|w,v} = E(Y_{t+1,...,t+n}|w,v) - E(Y_{t+1,...,t+n}|w).
- Bootstrap procedure for confidence intervals: 1000 iterations; shocks and expectations computed with bootstrapped residuals and the estimated VAR; Monte Carlo normal sampling produced similar results.

### Identification methods for shocks
- Narrative approach: exogenous tax shocks from Romer and Romer (2011) added as primary balance shocks; defense news variable of Ramey (2011) added as an expenditure shock; shocks scaled by nominal GDP in the previous period.
- Structural approach: Blanchard and Perotti (2002) structural identification, following Favero and Giavazzi (2007) parameterization for contemporaneous elasticities.
- GIR methodology: shocks generated from observed correlations among innovations; ordering a variable first yields a primary-deficit shock similar to Cholesky identification for that order.

### Data, sample, and estimation details
- Quarterly data sources: NIPA Tables 3.2 (total revenues, expenditures, interest payments), 1.1.5 (nominal GDP), 1.1.6 (real GDP), 1.1.9 (GDP deflator); federal debt held by the public from St. Louis Fed FRED.
- Quarterly data available from 1947; quarterly debt series available from 1970 (annual data start earlier).
- Whole sample: 2nd quarter of 1947 to 3rd quarter of 2011.
- Estimation sample focus: post-1980 sample; estimation sample ends in 4th quarter of 2007 due to availability of exogenous tax shocks data and the advent of the global financial crisis in 2008.
- Imputation: quarterly nominal debt between adjacent annual figures obtained by adding up quarterly overall fiscal balance figures and linearly interpolating the residual.
- Correlation patterns in 1980–2007 estimation sample: higher deficit associated with lower interest rate and debt ratio; debt ratio positively correlated with growth.
- The model uses OLS for VAR estimation; the change in debt (lagged debt coefficients with similar absolute values but opposite signs across VAR rows) drives VAR dynamics; equation (2) has no parameters to estimate.

### Literature and robustness notes
- VAR with debt feedback is recommended to avoid omitted variable bias; excluding debt can produce explosive debt dynamics and persistent impulse responses.
- The linear approximation of debt-to-GDP implicit in standard VARs may be misleading; including debt feedback ensures convergence of baseline debt ratio.
- The specification is robust to changing sample periods; initial conditions affect confidence band widths and thus risk assessment.
- The model ignores the debt residual (non-deficit financing); historically marginal for US (Favero and Giavazzi references).
- The model does not include marginal interest rates (Treasury bill rate or fed funds rate); correlation between average interest on debt and Treasury bill rate is above 80 percent (cited justification).

### Austerity shocks and debt dynamics (detailed)
- A one standard deviation austerity shock is 0.11 percent of GDP (austerity shock magnitude used in impulse analyses).
- Immediate effects and 3-year path (narrative identification using exogenous tax shocks):
  - Initial shock about 0.1 percent of GDP.
  - Over the following 3 years, the primary balance continues to increase by another 0.5 percent of GDP.
  - The debt ratio declines by 0.5 percent of GDP in the same 3-year period.
  - Growth falls on impact by about 0.1 percent and decreases further over the 3-year period (a cumulative decline of about 0.3 percent).
- Statistical significance and uncertainty:
  - The effect of an austerity shock on the debt ratio is not statistically significant in the narrative identification.
  - The 90 percent confidence interval under the narrative identification suggests a non-negligible chance of a self-defeating outcome: about 25 percent chance that the debt ratio would actually increase in the first few years after the shock.
  - Blanchard-Perotti and GIR (Cholesky) identification produce much tighter confidence bands and suggest a statistically significant debt reduction for about 8 years (under average initial conditions).
  - Using initial conditions as of the third quarter of 2011 widens confidence intervals materially; the debt ratio decline is statistically insignificant within 2 years even for Blanchard-Perotti specification.
- Summary quantitative tradeoff:
  - A one percent of GDP austerity shock leads to a cumulative increase in the primary surplus of 5.5 percent of GDP in 3 years and a decline in the debt ratio by about 4.5 percent of GDP, at the expense of about 3 percent fall in growth.

### Inflation and growth shocks — impulse responses and decompositions
- Inflation shock (one standard deviation = 0.16 percent):
  - Debt ratio falls by about 0.1 percent of GDP on impact.
  - Debt ratio then rises, peaking at about 0.3 percent of GDP increase in 5 years.
  - Mechanism: higher inflation initially lowers debt ratio but is later outweighed by higher interest rates, lower growth, and larger primary deficits consistent with a supply-driven inflation shock.
  - Monetary policy response matters: observed responses imply tighter monetary policy (higher interest rates) after inflation shocks; looser monetary policy would be needed for inflation to play a stronger role in reducing debt.
- Growth shock (one standard deviation ≈ 0.5 percent):
  - Debt ratio falls on impact by about 0.2 percent of GDP.
  - Growth increases by another 0.3 percent in the first year.
  - In about 3 years, the debt ratio falls by 0.8 percent of GDP as primary surplus increases by 0.7 percent of GDP.
  - Inflation and interest rate contributions are relatively small in the first few years.
  - To achieve the same medium-term debt reduction via austerity, policymakers would need surpluses about 30 percent larger than those under the growth shock.
  - Employment outcomes differ: positive growth shock benefits employment, unlike austerity which reduces growth and employment.

### Policy implications and recommendations
- General policy guidance:
  - In the medium term, an austerity shock can reduce the debt ratio on average, but there is large uncertainty—especially in a weak economic environment where austerity could be counterproductive.
  - The safest policy in a weak economy to deal with high debt is to stimulate growth.
  - The time to start gradually reducing debt is when robust economic recovery is underway.
  - Reducing debt and deficits in expansionary times may be easier to implement and less risky for growth and employment.
- Specific considerations:
  - Short-run fiscal consolidation may yield only small debt-ratio improvements at the cost of significant short-run growth losses and higher unemployment.
  - Inflation-based debt reduction strategies may fail if monetary policy reacts with higher interest rates; a different monetary policy response (e.g., looser policy or a higher inflation target) would be required for inflation to erode debt effectively.
  - Given long-run convergence of the debt ratio, a long-run view in reducing debt is preferable to aggressive short-run fixes.

### Modeling and methodological remarks
- The analysis uses a VAR with debt feedback to study U.S. public debt dynamics.
- Incorporating the dynamic effect of debt (debt feedback) is important because:
  - The forecast debt path may not be stable if debt feedback is ignored.
  - Linear VARs or VARs that omit debt can misspecify relationships and hide an implied buildup of debt.
  - Nonlinearities and initial conditions matter for impulse responses and the size of associated risks.
- Results are robust to whether the debt feedback component is shut down in the forecast or the debt path is computed based on a VAR that excludes debt completely, but the VAR with debt feedback produces a robust result that the debt dynamics are not explosive unlike the VAR without debt feedback.

### Key statistics and selected numerical results (preserved exactly)
- Austerity shock size used in figures: 0.11 percent of GDP.
- Narrative identification: initial shock about 0.1 percent of GDP; additional primary balance increase over 3 years = 0.5 percent of GDP; debt ratio decline over 3 years = 0.5 percent of GDP.
- Growth responses: impact fall ≈ 0.1 percent; cumulative 3-year decline ≈ 0.3 percent.
- Tradeoff summary: one percent of GDP austerity shock → cumulative primary surplus increase = 5.5 percent of GDP in 3 years; debt ratio decline ≈ 4.5 percent of GDP; growth fall ≈ 3 percent.
- Uncertainty measures: 90 percent confidence intervals reported; about 25 percent chance debt ratio increases in first few years under narrative identification.
- Inflation shock: one standard deviation = 0.16 percent; impact debt change = -0.1 percent of GDP; peak increase ≈ 0.3 percent of GDP in 5 years.
- Growth shock: one standard deviation ≈ 0.5 percent; impact debt change = -0.2 percent of GDP; 3-year debt change = -0.8 percent of GDP; primary surplus increase in 3 years = 0.7 percent of GDP.
- Long-run debt convergence level found ≈ 40 percent of GDP.
- Initial-condition sensitivity: using observations up to the third quarter of 2011 substantially widens confidence intervals and reduces statistical significance of debt declines.

### Appendix A — Debt impulse-response illustrations and comparisons
- Debt impulse responses to one standard deviation positive shocks shown for:
  - primary deficit (pb)
  - growth (dy)
  - inflation (dp)
  - interest rate (in)
- Decomposition of responses into contributions from primary deficit, growth, inflation, and interest rate presented.
- Comparison of VAR models shows responses for:
  - No Debt in VAR
  - Debt in VAR and No Feedback
  - Debt in VAR and Feedback
- Debt forecasts from VAR models present 10-year forecasts for initial conditions 2011:IV and 2009:III using estimation sample 1980-2007; forecast series shown for the three VAR specifications.

### Appendix B — Decomposition of the debt impulse response
- The decomposition of the debt impulse response, IRd, is defined and derived from the debt dynamics equation; components are expressed in the source with the exact equations and algebraic terms as presented.
- Interpretation:
  - The first term in each equation indicates the difference between “shock” and “no shock” paths of the components scaled by the previous “no shock” debt ratio.
  - The second term is the adjusted previous value of the component.
- Consolidated decomposition expression is presented in the source, where ns/Δ stands for the difference between “shock” and “no shock” paths.
- Note: The last term disappears in the initial period, 1 = t, as the previous (before shock, 0 = t) debt ratio is the same.

*Source: _wp12230 — Excerpt from IMF working paper (post-1980 sample focus, empirical VAR with debt feedback; sections II–IV, empirical model and impulse-response results).*

### 1. Descriptive Statistics ..............................................................................................

### 1. Descriptive Statistics

### Context and recent history
- The 2008 global financial crisis caused widespread large deficits and swelling public debt as output collapsed in many countries.  
- The IMF (2012) estimated that the level of public debt for advanced countries increased from about 75 percent of GDP before the crisis to above 100 percent of GDP in 2011, a level unseen since the Second World War.  
- The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that federal public debt would rise to above 70 percent of GDP by end-2012 from 36 percent at end-2007.  
- The IMF (2012), using general government data, estimates the debt ratio to increase to about 107 percent of GDP in 2012 from 67 percent at end-2007.  
- The federal deficit rose from about 1 percent of GDP to 10 percent in 2009 and is estimated at about 7.5 percent in 2012.  
- In the U.S., by mid-2012 the unemployment rate had declined to 8.3 percent from the end-2009 peak of 9.9 percent.

### Policy options for reducing public debt (themes discussed)
- Fiscal consolidation (austerity), growth, inflation, or low interest rates are elements of a debt-reduction strategy from the debt dynamics equation.  
- In an environment of weak domestic growth and the zero-interest rate bound, fiscal consolidation could prove to be self-defeating.  
- Stimulating growth could improve both debt dynamics and fiscal balance by increasing revenues; “bang for the buck” strategies are required to raise short-run growth without substantially adding to public debt.  
- Higher inflation and “financial repression” measures—such as regulations on capital movements and interest rates—are other possibilities to reduce debt.  
- Financial repression can keep the interest rate low and was found to be more successful in reducing debt when accompanied by inflation, but allowing a higher inflation target would require a radical change in monetary policy.

### Empirical framework and methodological approach
- The paper uses a modified VAR framework in the tradition of Sims (1980) that includes a separate debt equation as in Favero and Giavazzi (2007, 2009).  
- The VAR model includes the debt-to-GDP ratio (and its lags) as an exogenous variable and the macro aggregates that are part of the debt equation as endogenous variables, thereby accounting for the reaction of agents to changes in the level of public debt.  
- A separate deterministic debt equation keeps track of debt dynamics; computed impulse responses incorporate the dynamic effect of the debt-to-GDP ratio, feeding from the debt equation, on macro aggregates that in turn affect the debt ratio going forward.  
- The specification—a VAR with debt feedback—yields a stationary debt ratio, whereas VARs excluding debt could imply an explosive debt path.  
- Accounting for the effect of debt on macroeconomic aggregates introduces nonlinearity into VARs, implying that the economic environment (initial conditions) could matter for outcomes; median impulse responses are not substantially altered by changes in initial conditions, but uncertainty around the median path can be dramatically affected.

### Key empirical findings and projections
- If the economy continues to behave as in the recent past (1980-2007 period), the debt ratio is expected to converge to its long-term average of about 40 percent of GDP, and deviations resulting from macroeconomic shocks are temporary.  
- The public debt ratio falls in response to primary surplus shocks, then returns to its pre-shock path.  
- Following an exogenous primary surplus shock of 1 percent of GDP, the debt ratio falls by about 4.5 percent of GDP in about 3 years.  
- Fiscal consolidation would continue beyond the initial shock—primary surpluses of cumulative (text truncated in source at this point).

*Source: _wp12230 - 1. Descriptive Statistics*

### 5.5 percent of GDP are run within 3 years, thus lowering the debt ratio. The resulting

### _wp12230 - 5.5 percent of GDP are run within 3 years, thus lowering the debt ratio. The resulting

### Key findings on austerity, growth, inflation, and debt dynamics
- Austerity shock (narrative identification of primary balance shocks) does not have a statistically significant effect on the debt ratio; uncertainty around the median path is substantial, especially in a weak economy.
- There is a 25 percent chance that the debt ratio could increase in the first few years following an austerity shock as growth deteriorates.
- In recessionary times, where fiscal multipliers are larger, an austerity shock might result in an increasing debt ratio; austerity shocks could be self-defeating.
- Under initial conditions prevailing in 2011 (a weak economy, low interest rates and inflation, large deficit, and rising debt), confidence bands are wider and risks to a self-defeating austerity shock are much higher than in “normal” times.
- An inflation shock results in an increasing debt ratio after only a few quarters (under post-1980 dynamics), despite a fall of about 0.5 percent of GDP on impact.
- A positive shock to growth reduces public debt substantially: a 1 percentage point increase in growth rate reduces the debt ratio by around 1.5 percent of GDP in 3 years.
- The debt ratio eventually declines over time when starting at a high level of debt in the authors’ model; the future debt path may already incorporate debt-reducing dynamics of the past, implying some austerity shocks may be unnecessary.

### Quantified impulse-response results (austerity and other shocks)
- A one standard deviation increase in the primary surplus equals 0.11 percent of GDP (scaled in the narrative approach to match Blanchard-Perotti).
- All identification schemes indicate the debt ratio falls by about 0.5-0.75 percent of GDP in about 2.5-3 years after the austerity shock, then rises and converges to the pre-shock baseline sometime after 10 years.
- A 1 percent inflation shock (post-1980 dynamics) could lead to a rise of the debt ratio within a few quarters despite an impact fall of about 0.5 percent of GDP.
- Hall and Sargent (1946–1974 reference): about 23 percent of the debt reduction from 1946 to 1974 was due to inflation (as cited in related literature).
- Aizenman and Marion: an inflation of 6 percent could reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio by about 20 percent over 4 years (cited literature).

### Model specification and numerical setup
- Endogenous VAR vector Y includes: primary deficit-to-GDP ratio (pb), real GDP growth rate (g), inflation rate based on the GDP deflator (π), and nominal average interest rate based on interest payments on debt (i).
- Debt-to-GDP ratio (d) enters as an exogenous variable in the VAR and is governed by the debt equation (2).
- Lags used: k = 2 and l = 4 (2;4 = lk).
- Debt dynamics equation: d_t = ( (1 + i_t) / (1 + π_t + g_t) ) d_{t-1} + pb_t  (as presented in equation (2) form).
- Impulse responses are computed as conditional expectations (GIR-like) and defined using equation (3): IR_{t+1,...,t+n|w,v} = E(Y_{t+1,...,t+n}|w,v) - E(Y_{t+1,...,t+n}|w).
- Bootstrap procedure for confidence intervals: 1000 iterations; shocks and expectations computed with bootstrapped residuals and the estimated VAR; Monte Carlo normal sampling produced similar results.

### Identification methods for shocks
- Narrative approach: exogenous tax shocks from Romer and Romer (2011) added as primary balance shocks; defense news variable of Ramey (2011) added as an expenditure shock; shocks scaled by nominal GDP in the previous period.
- Structural approach: Blanchard and Perotti (2002) structural identification, following Favero and Giavazzi (2007) parameterization for contemporaneous elasticities.
- GIR methodology: shocks generated from observed correlations among innovations; ordering a variable first yields a primary-deficit shock similar to Cholesky identification for that order.

### Data, sample, and estimation details
- Quarterly data sources: NIPA Tables 3.2 (total revenues, expenditures, interest payments), 1.1.5 (nominal GDP), 1.1.6 (real GDP), 1.1.9 (GDP deflator); federal debt held by the public from St. Louis Fed FRED.
- Quarterly data available from 1947; quarterly debt series available from 1970 (annual data start earlier).
- Whole sample: 2nd quarter of 1947 to 3rd quarter of 2011.
- Estimation sample focus: post-1980 sample; estimation sample ends in 4th quarter of 2007 due to availability of exogenous tax shocks data and the advent of the global financial crisis in 2008.
- Imputation: quarterly nominal debt between adjacent annual figures obtained by adding up quarterly overall fiscal balance figures and linearly interpolating the residual.
- Correlation patterns in 1980–2007 estimation sample: higher deficit associated with lower interest rate and debt ratio; debt ratio positively correlated with growth.
- The model uses OLS for VAR estimation; the change in debt (lagged debt coefficients with similar absolute values but opposite signs across VAR rows) drives VAR dynamics; equation (2) has no parameters to estimate.

### Literature and robustness notes
- VAR with debt feedback is recommended to avoid omitted variable bias; excluding debt can produce explosive debt dynamics and persistent impulse responses.
- The linear approximation of debt-to-GDP implicit in standard VARs may be misleading; including debt feedback ensures convergence of baseline debt ratio.
- The specification is robust to changing sample periods; initial conditions affect confidence band widths and thus risk assessment.
- The model ignores the debt residual (non-deficit financing); historically marginal for US (Favero and Giavazzi references).
- The model does not include marginal interest rates (Treasury bill rate or fed funds rate); correlation between average interest on debt and Treasury bill rate is above 80 percent (cited justification).

*Source: Excerpt from the provided IMF working paper content (post-1980 sample focus, empirical VAR with debt feedback; sections II–IV, empirical model and impulse-response results).*

### 2009. The results are similar irrespective of whether the debt feedback component is shut down in the

### _wp12230 - 2009. The results are similar irrespective of whether the debt feedback component is shut down in the

### Austerity shocks and debt dynamics
- A one standard deviation austerity shock is 0.11 percent of GDP (austerity shock magnitude used in impulse analyses).
- Immediate effects and 3-year path (narrative identification using exogenous tax shocks):
  - Initial shock about 0.1 percent of GDP.
  - Over the following 3 years, the primary balance continues to increase by another 0.5 percent of GDP.
  - The debt ratio declines by 0.5 percent of GDP in the same 3-year period.
  - Growth falls on impact by about 0.1 percent and decreases further over the 3-year period (a cumulative decline of about 0.3 percent).
- Statistical significance and uncertainty:
  - The effect of an austerity shock on the debt ratio is not statistically significant in the narrative identification.
  - The 90 percent confidence interval under the narrative identification suggests a non-negligible chance of a self-defeating outcome: about 25 percent chance that the debt ratio would actually increase in the first few years after the shock.
  - Blanchard-Perotti and GIR (Cholesky) identification produce much tighter confidence bands and suggest a statistically significant debt reduction for about 8 years (under average initial conditions).
  - Using initial conditions as of the third quarter of 2011 widens confidence intervals materially; the debt ratio decline is statistically insignificant within 2 years even for Blanchard-Perotti specification.
- Summary quantitative tradeoff:
  - A one percent of GDP austerity shock leads to a cumulative increase in the primary surplus of 5.5 percent of GDP in 3 years and a decline in the debt ratio by about 4.5 percent of GDP, at the expense of about 3 percent fall in growth.

### Inflation and growth shocks — impulse responses and decompositions
- Inflation shock (one standard deviation = 0.16 percent):
  - Debt ratio falls by about 0.1 percent of GDP on impact.
  - Debt ratio then rises, peaking at about 0.3 percent of GDP increase in 5 years.
  - Mechanism: higher inflation initially lowers debt ratio but is later outweighed by higher interest rates, lower growth, and larger primary deficits consistent with a supply-driven inflation shock.
  - Monetary policy response matters: observed responses imply tighter monetary policy (higher interest rates) after inflation shocks; looser monetary policy would be needed for inflation to play a stronger role in reducing debt.
- Growth shock (one standard deviation ≈ 0.5 percent):
  - Debt ratio falls on impact by about 0.2 percent of GDP.
  - Growth increases by another 0.3 percent in the first year.
  - In about 3 years, the debt ratio falls by 0.8 percent of GDP as primary surplus increases by 0.7 percent of GDP.
  - Inflation and interest rate contributions are relatively small in the first few years.
  - To achieve the same medium-term debt reduction via austerity, policymakers would need surpluses about 30 percent larger than those under the growth shock.
  - Employment outcomes differ: positive growth shock benefits employment, unlike austerity which reduces growth and employment.

### Policy implications and recommendations
- General policy guidance:
  - In the medium term, an austerity shock can reduce the debt ratio on average, but there is large uncertainty—especially in a weak economic environment where austerity could be counterproductive.
  - The safest policy in a weak economy to deal with high debt is to stimulate growth.
  - The time to start gradually reducing debt is when robust economic recovery is underway.
  - Reducing debt and deficits in expansionary times may be easier to implement and less risky for growth and employment.
- Specific considerations:
  - Short-run fiscal consolidation may yield only small debt-ratio improvements at the cost of significant short-run growth losses and higher unemployment.
  - Inflation-based debt reduction strategies may fail if monetary policy reacts with higher interest rates; a different monetary policy response (e.g., looser policy or a higher inflation target) would be required for inflation to erode debt effectively.
  - Given long-run convergence of the debt ratio, a long-run view in reducing debt is preferable to aggressive short-run fixes.

### Modeling and methodological remarks
- Model used and key modeling insights:
  - The analysis uses a VAR with debt feedback to study U.S. public debt dynamics.
  - Incorporating the dynamic effect of debt (debt feedback) is important because:
    - The forecast debt path may not be stable if debt feedback is ignored.
    - Linear VARs or VARs that omit debt can misspecify relationships and hide an implied buildup of debt.
    - Nonlinearities and initial conditions matter for impulse responses and the size of associated risks.
  - Results are robust to whether the debt feedback component is shut down in the forecast or the debt path is computed based on a VAR that excludes debt completely, but the VAR with debt feedback produces a robust result that the debt dynamics are not explosive unlike the VAR without debt feedback.

### Key statistics and selected numerical results (preserved exactly)
- Austerity shock size used in figures: 0.11 percent of GDP.
- Narrative identification: initial shock about 0.1 percent of GDP; additional primary balance increase over 3 years = 0.5 percent of GDP; debt ratio decline over 3 years = 0.5 percent of GDP.
- Growth responses: impact fall ≈ 0.1 percent; cumulative 3-year decline ≈ 0.3 percent.
- Tradeoff summary: one percent of GDP austerity shock → cumulative primary surplus increase = 5.5 percent of GDP in 3 years; debt ratio decline ≈ 4.5 percent of GDP; growth fall ≈ 3 percent.
- Uncertainty measures: 90 percent confidence intervals reported; about 25 percent chance debt ratio increases in first few years under narrative identification.
- Inflation shock: one standard deviation = 0.16 percent; impact debt change = -0.1 percent of GDP; peak increase ≈ 0.3 percent of GDP in 5 years.
- Growth shock: one standard deviation ≈ 0.5 percent; impact debt change = -0.2 percent of GDP; 3-year debt change = -0.8 percent of GDP; primary surplus increase in 3 years = 0.7 percent of GDP.
- Long-run debt convergence level found ≈ 40 percent of GDP.
- Initial-condition sensitivity: using observations up to the third quarter of 2011 substantially widens confidence intervals and reduces statistical significance of debt declines.

*Source: _wp12230 (2009) — IMF working paper excerpt.*

### Appendix A

### Appendix A

### Debt impulse-response illustrations (Blanchard-Perotti identification)
- The figure shows responses of the debt ratio to one standard deviation positive shocks in:
  - primary deficit (pb)
  - growth (dy)
  - inflation (dp)
  - interest rate (in)
- The decomposition of the responses into contributions from:
  - primary deficit
  - growth
  - inflation
  - interest rate
- Axes and annotation excerpts from the figures (as presented):
  - Quarters: 0 10 20 30 40
  - Debt as a share of GDP: 0 10 20 30 40
  - Effect of one σ deviation of pb / dy / dp / in

### Comparison of VAR models: Debt impulse responses (GIR/Cholesky identification)
- The figure shows responses of the debt ratio to one standard deviation positive shocks in:
  - primary deficit (pb)
  - growth (dy)
  - inflation (dp)
  - interest rate (in)
- Each chart presents debt ratio responses from three models:
  - No Debt in VAR
  - Debt in VAR and No Feedback
  - Debt in VAR and Feedback
- Axes and annotation excerpts from the figures (as presented):
  - Quarters: 0 10 20 30 40
  - Debt as a share of GDP: ranges shown include negative values (e.g., -0.02 to 0) and small magnitudes (e.g., x 10^-3)
  - Effect of one σ deviation of pb / dy / dp / in

### Debt forecasts from VAR models
- The figures show a 10-year forecast of the debt ratio for three different VAR models with two sets of initial conditions:
  - Initial conditions: 2011:IV and 2009:III
  - Estimation sample: 1980-2007 (in both figures)
- Forecast series shown for each model:
  - No Debt in VAR
  - Debt in VAR and No Feedback
  - Debt in VAR and Feedback
- Excerpts of axes and ticks used in the figures:
  - Quarters: 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
  - Debt as a share of GDP (example tick values from figures): 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2; and 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

### Appendix B — Decomposition of the debt impulse response
- Definition: The decomposition of the debt impulse response, IRd, in terms of contributions of each macroeconomic aggregate is defined as:
  - tttttt s n t gipbddd 
  (as presented in the source)
- Using the debt dynamics equation and approximating the nonlinear component, the components of the decomposition at time t are shown (source text equations reproduced exactly as presented):
  - 
    
    
    
    *
    11
    *
    *
    11
    *
    *
    11
    *
    *
    11
    *
    *
    1
    *
    1
    1
    1
    1
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    t
    s
    t
    s
    t
    s
    t
    n
    t
    n
    t
    s
    tt
    t
    s
    t
    s
    t
    s
    t
    n
    t
    n
    t
    s
    tt
    t
    s
    t
    s
    t
    s
    t
    n
    t
    n
    t
    s
    tt
    t
    s
    t
    s
    t
    s
    t
    n
    t
    s
    tt
    ggidggg
    gid
    igidiii
    pbgipbpbpb
    
    
    
    
- Interpretation of terms:
  - The first term in each equation indicates the difference between “shock” and “no shock” paths of the components scaled by the previous “no shock” debt ratio.
  - The second term is the adjusted previous value of the component.
- Consolidated decomposition expression (as presented):
  - 
    IR
    t
    s
    t
    s
    t
    s
    t
    n
    tt
    ns
    t
    ns
    t
    ns
    t
    nsIR
    t
    dgidgipbd
    11
    ////
    1
    
    
  - where ns/ stands for the difference between “shock” and “no shock” paths.
- Note: The last term disappears in the initial period, 1t, as the previous (before shock, 0t) debt ratio is the same.

*Source: _wp12230 - Appendix A*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/_wp12230.pdf_