![[Search]](/img/navbar/searchoff.gif)
![[Media Releases]](/img/navbar/mediaoff.gif)
![[Events]](/img/navbar/eventsoff.gif)
![[Online Publications]](/img/navbar/onlineoff.gif)
![[Order Publications]](/img/navbar/orderoff.gif)
![[Student]](/img/navbar/studentoff.gif)
![[Radio]](/img/navbar/radiooff.gif)
![[National Media Archive]](/img/navbar/archiveoff.gif)
![[Membership]](/img/navbar/membershipoff.gif)
![[Other Resources]](/img/navbar/resourcesoff.gif)
![[About Us]](/img/navbar/aboutoff.gif)

The Economic Freedom Network
|
|
One way to assess the indebtedness of a nation is to compare it to
other nations. Accordingly, a standard feature of the annual calculation of the total
liabilities of Canadian governments has been a comparison with the debt levels of other
countries.
Countries are compared using the amount of debt per person within
a country compared to the discretionary income per person (the level of income earned
above the subsistence level). This method of assessing debt levels by including income
statistics takes into account the ability of nations to service their debt.
Table 6 ranks jurisdictions from best to worst
on the basis of their debt calculated as a percentage of discretionary income. For
instance, Ontario ranks 86th out of 151 jurisdictions with a ratio of 74.9 percent. This
means that the debt per person accumulated by Ontario represents 74.9 percent of the
average person's total annual income less an allowance for a minimum level of subsistence.
Table 6: Debt Rankings,
percentage of Discretionary Income, 1995 |
|
|
|
Rank |
Country |
Debt to
Discretionary Income |
1 |
Norway |
(23.5) |
2 |
Korea, Rep. |
(20.9) |
3 |
Finland |
(10.4) |
4 |
Estonia |
8.4 |
5 |
Belarus |
8.8 |
6 |
Latvia |
8.8 |
7 |
Uzbekistan |
9.4 |
8 |
Japan |
11.9 |
9 |
Ukraine |
11.9 |
10 |
Lithuania |
12.5 |
11 |
Turkmenistan |
12.7 |
12 |
Fiji |
13.1 |
13 |
Azerbaijan |
15.3 |
14 |
Botswana |
17.2 |
15 |
Armenia |
17.3 |
16 |
Slovenia |
19.2 |
17 |
Kazakstan |
20.2 |
18 |
Romania |
21.2 |
19 |
Croatia |
21.3 |
20 |
Sweden |
24.1 |
21 |
Brazil |
24.1 |
22 |
St. Lucia |
24.3 |
23 |
China |
24.7 |
24 |
Moldova |
25.4 |
25 |
St. Kitts and Nevis |
25.9 |
26 |
Guatemala |
26.1 |
27 |
Oman |
26.6 |
28 |
Kyrgyz Republic |
27.4 |
29 |
Swaziland |
27.7 |
30 |
Australia |
28.5 |
31 |
Lebanon |
28.5 |
32 |
Colombia |
29.9 |
33 |
El Salvador |
30.6 |
34 |
Uruguay |
30.7 |
35 |
Argentina |
32.7 |
36 |
Paraguay |
33.3 |
37 |
Barbados |
35.3 |
38 |
Slovak Republic |
35.5 |
39 |
Thailand |
36.3 |
40 |
France |
36.7 |
41 |
Russian Federation |
37.7 |
42 |
Poland |
38.2 |
43 |
Iceland |
38.4 |
44 |
Czech Republic |
38.7 |
45 |
Chile |
39.5 |
46 |
YUKON TERRITORY |
40.7 |
47 |
Malaysia |
42.1 |
48 |
United Kingdom |
42.1 |
49 |
Dominican Republic |
43.3 |
50 |
Dominica |
43.5 |
51 |
Grenada |
43.5 |
52 |
Costa Rica |
44.1 |
53 |
Albania |
44.4 |
54 |
Denmark |
44.8 |
55 |
Germany |
45.2 |
56 |
Netherlands |
46.1 |
57 |
Tonga |
46.3 |
58 |
Turkey |
47.9 |
59 |
United States |
48.2 |
60 |
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES |
48.2 |
61 |
Belize |
48.4 |
62 |
Mauritius |
48.5 |
63 |
Bhutan |
49.3 |
64 |
Spain |
49.9 |
65 |
Austria |
50.1 |
66 |
Trinidad and Tobago |
50.2 |
67 |
Venezuela |
50.4 |
68 |
Solomon Islands |
54.7 |
69 |
ALBERTA |
54.9 |
70 |
Peru |
58.1 |
71 |
BRITISH COLUMBIA |
59.0 |
72 |
Papua New Guinea |
59.1 |
73 |
Tunisia |
60.6 |
74 |
India |
60.9 |
75 |
SASKATCHEWAN |
63.8 |
76 |
Philippines |
64.0 |
77 |
Indonesia |
66.3 |
78 |
Djibouti |
68.7 |
79 |
Maldives |
68.9 |
80 |
MANITOBA |
69.2 |
81 |
Canada |
70.3 |
82 |
Mexico |
71.1 |
83 |
Tajikistan |
71.5 |
84 |
QUEBEC |
74.0 |
85 |
Hungary |
74.7 |
86 |
ONTARIO |
74.9 |
87 |
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND |
75.4 |
88 |
Macedonia, FYR |
76.4 |
89 |
NEW BRUNSWICK |
76.5 |
90 |
Morocco |
80.4 |
91 |
Pakistan |
81.8 |
92 |
Sri Lanka |
85.7 |
93 |
St. Vincent and the Grenadines |
87.2 |
94 |
Ecuador |
88.1 |
95 |
Georgia |
89.0 |
96 |
NOVA SCOTIA |
89.4 |
97 |
Algeria |
89.8 |
98 |
NEWFOUNDLAND |
90.6 |
99 |
Egypt, Arab Rep. |
92.8 |
100 |
Lesotho |
98.9 |
101 |
Gabon |
100.0 |
102 |
Bulgaria |
100.5 |
103 |
Panama |
103.6 |
104 |
Jamaica |
108.2 |
105 |
Zimbabwe |
108.4 |
106 |
Haiti |
110.3 |
107 |
Bolivia |
110.3 |
108 |
Italy |
110.8 |
109 |
Senegal |
115.9 |
110 |
Mongolia |
124.9 |
111 |
Belgium |
125.3 |
112 |
Guinea |
130.7 |
113 |
Comoros |
149.4 |
114 |
Syrian Arab Republic |
150.1 |
115 |
Honduras |
160.1 |
116 |
Uganda |
166.0 |
117 |
Cameroon |
170.0 |
118 |
Nigeria |
174.0 |
119 |
Kenya |
175.3 |
120 |
Central African Republic |
178.5 |
121 |
Ghana |
184.2 |
122 |
Cambodia |
216.8 |
123 |
Bangladesh |
227.6 |
124 |
Gambia, The |
235.4 |
125 |
Lao PDR |
249.7 |
126 |
Cote d'Ivoire |
252.3 |
127 |
Zambia |
282.0 |
128 |
Togo |
288.6 |
129 |
Burkina Faso |
297.6 |
130 |
Equatorial Guinea |
307.5 |
131 |
Yemen, Rep. |
311.3 |
132 |
Congo |
358.7 |
133 |
Mauritania |
378.6 |
134 |
Vietnam |
383.7 |
135 |
Guyana |
475.5 |
136 |
Mali |
479.2 |
137 |
Madagascar |
615.0 |
138 |
Angola |
655.9 |
139 |
Nepal |
785.8 |
140 |
Niger |
787.3 |
141 |
Nicaragua |
836.5 |
142 |
Sao Tome and Principe |
1,266.7 |
143 |
Guinea-Bissau |
1,467.6 |
144 |
Sierra Leone |
2,180.7 |
145 |
Ethiopia |
(103.7) |
146 |
Mozambique |
(388.0) |
147 |
Tanzania |
(402.3) |
148 |
Malawi |
(667.9) |
149 |
Burundi |
(1,373.5) |
150 |
Chad |
(2,171.5) |
151 |
Rwanda |
(2,310.5) |
|
|
|
Sources: OECD, Economic Outlook
62, December 1997; World Bank, World Development Indicators CD-ROM, 1997; Statistics
Canada, Canadian Federal and Provincial government budgets, calculations by the authors. |
To compare jurisdictions in the same income groups, with similar
income and consumption patterns, countries are separated according to their income levels
per person using modified World Bank classifications (see Appendix D). The ranking shows several interesting results.
Norway, South Korea, and Finland, which took the top three spots in the overall ratings,
have governments that are net providers of capital. All three governments have negative
net debt, as indicated by the negative ratio in Table 6, since they have more financial
assets than gross debt.
Click Here to Appendix D
At the bottom of the ranking, Rwanda, Chad, Burundi, Malawi,
Tanzania, Mozambique, and Ethiopia all reported negative discretionary income levels. In
other words, the average citizen in these countries does not earn the level of income
necessary for subsistence. The annual study of human development by the United Nations
(United Nations Development Programme 1997) provides further evidence of the poverty in
these particular countries. It reports that the average life expectancy in these countries
is 42.7 years. The average life expectancy for all developing countries is 61.8 years. In
addition, these nations fall below the subsistence level of daily caloric intake: a
subsistence diet is 2,869 calories but average consumption in these seven countries is
only 1,841 calories. The United Nations study corroborates the findings of this study;
that these countries are being crushed by debt and an inability to generate income.
Ten of the 14 former Soviet republics--Estonia, Belarus, Latvia,
Uzbekistan, Ukraine, Lithuania, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Kazakhstan--rank
within the top 20. In fact, former Soviet republics dominate the top 10, occupying
positions 4 through 7, 9 and 10. The principal reason for their success is the Zero Option
Agreement (1993), by which the newly formed Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)
assumed all the debt of the former Soviet Union while the new republics forfeited all
claims against assets of the former Soviet Union (Boote et al. 1995: 81). In this study,
the entire stock of external debt for the former Soviet republics consists of debt
accumulated since 1993; the external debt of these countries stood at $15.3 billion by the
end of 1994. The bulk of the debt was issued to ``transform and stabilize the economy''
and ``finance imports'' (Boote et al. 1995: 82). External debt grew to $21.2 billion in
1995. The former Soviet republics currently have an advantage due to their relatively
small debt stock. However, if they continue to accumulate debt as quickly as they have
been, they will erode this advantage.
The results for Canada and the provinces are remarkably poor. The
Yukon ranks the highest of any Canadian region at 46th while Newfoundland ranks the lowest
at 98th. Table 7 summarizes the ranking of each region in Canada.
Table 7: Canadian Rankings,
1995 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overall
Rank |
Region |
Debt-to-GDP |
Debt-to-Discretionary-Income |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
46 |
Yukon
Territory |
40.4 |
40.7 |
2 |
60 |
Northwest
Territories |
47.9 |
48.2 |
3 |
69 |
Alberta |
54.5 |
54.9 |
4 |
71 |
British
Columbia |
58.5 |
59.0 |
5 |
75 |
Saskatchewan |
63.2 |
63.8 |
6 |
80 |
Manitoba |
68.5 |
69.2 |
7 |
81 |
Canada |
69.6 |
70.3 |
8 |
84 |
Quebec |
73.3 |
74.0 |
9 |
86 |
Ontario |
74.3 |
74.9 |
10 |
87 |
Prince
Edward Island |
74.4 |
75.4 |
11 |
89 |
New
Brunswick |
75.6 |
76.5 |
12 |
96 |
Nova
Scotia |
88.2 |
89.4 |
13 |
98 |
Newfoundland |
89.3 |
90.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
Sources: see table 6. |
|
|
More important than the overall rankings are the relative
rankings generated from the specific comparison with other high-income nations belonging
to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (see Appendix D[1]).
Canada ranks third lowest; only Italy and Belgium rank lower. Among the G-7 nations,
Canada is second to last and, while Canada is considerably above Italy, it is also
significantly below the other G-7 nations. Japan ranks eighth overall, and first among G-7
nations with a ratio of debt to discretionary income per person of 11.9 percent while
Canada ranks 81st overall and sixth in the G-7 with a ratio of 70.3 percent.
Implications
Canada has few options in selecting a strategy for eliminating its deficits and debt.
Since tax rates are high compared to those of other G-7 nations, only spending reductions
can be used to eliminate debt without affecting global competitiveness. In a recent study
by the Canadian Institute of Actuaries, Canada ranked first in personal income tax, second
in indirect and ``other'' taxes, fourth in corporate taxes, and last in payroll taxes
(Canadian Institute of Actuaries 1995: 20). A recent OECD publication (OECD 1997b) shows
that, excluding social security taxes, Canadians already pay 1.4 percentage points more of
their income to government than the average citizen of the European Community. Lower
social-security taxes in Canada are due mostly to the fact that our population is younger.
When the promises we have made to ourselves about social security and health care have to
be delivered, the tax burden of Canadians will increase dramatically--witness the recent
CPP/QPP reforms that will increase public pension contributions from 6 percent to 9.9
percent, the largest tax increase in Canadian history.
The relatively high level of Canadian and provincial debt offers
an explanation for the higher-than-average interest rates and persistently high
unemployment rates in our recent past. While debt is not the sole cause of high interest
rates or unemployment, it is certainly a contributing factor. Interest is the payment
demanded by individuals who forego current consumption and make their savings available to
borrowers. When the risk of default is high, higher interest rates (risk premiums)
compensate these lenders. As government debt increases relative to the size of revenues,
the risk of default increases and the risk premium goes up; increasing debt places upward
pressure on interest rates.
A high interest rate is a key contributor to unemployment since
businesses postpone borrowing for investment projects. A recent publication from the
Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (an Ottawa-based, labour-supported, think tank),
notes the damaging effects of high interest rates on job creation (Cameron and Finn 1998:
18-19). This report also highlights the need for a plan to reduce interest rates, to
reduce the stock of debt relative to the size of the economy, and to eliminate the
default-risk premium. Recently, the decrease in the rate at which Canadian governments are
accumulating debt and the increasing focus on fiscal responsibility has lessened the
upward pressure on interest rates.
Click here to Figure 4
info@fraserinstitute.ca
You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.
|
| |
|
|
|
Last Modified: Wednesday, October 20, 1999.
|
|