The Twin Deficits Hypothesis: An Empirical Examination

  • Graham BirdEmail author
  • Eric Pentecost
  • Yanyan Yang
Research Article


The ‘twin deficits hypothesis’ (TDH) claims that there is a connection between fiscal and current account deficits. In its most extreme form, popularized by the ‘New Cambridge School’ in the 1970s, the argument was that, with equilibrium in the private sector, the size of the public sector deficit was proportional to, and the principal determinant of the size of the current account deficit. In softer versions, private sector equilibrium is not assumed, but it is still argued that changes in the size of the fiscal deficit result in broadly equivalent changes in the current account. If valid, the TDH has important policy implications. In this paper we critically review the theoretical rationale for the TDH. We go on to examine the empirical evidence relating to it. We find little consistent support for the hypothesis either across our sample of advanced OECD countries or members of the BRICS group, excluding Russia. An explanation of current account disequilibria requires going beyond a narrow focus on fiscal imbalances in the context of the twin deficits hypothesis.


Twin deficits Current account balances Fiscal deficits 

JEL Classification

F41 F42 



We are grateful to George Tavlas and two anonymous referees for helpful comments on an earlier version of the paper.


  1. Abbas SMA, Bouhga-Hagbe J, Fatas A, Mauro P, Velleso R (2010) Fiscal policy and the current account, Working Paper, 10/21. International Monetary Fund, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Baharumshah AZ, Lau E, Khalid AM (2006) Testing the twin deficit hypothesis using VARs and variance decomposition. J Asia Pac Econ 11(3):331–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barro RJ (1974) Are government bonds real wealth? J Polit Econ 82:1095–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barry F, Devereux MB (1995) The expansionary fiscal contraction hypothesis: a neo-Keynesian analysis. Oxf Econ Pap 47:249–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bird G (2016) Fiscal policy and the global crisis. World Econ 17(1):147–176Google Scholar
  6. Bluedorn J, Leigh D (2011) Revisiting the twin deficits hypothesis: the effect of fiscal consolidation on the current account. IMF Econ Rev 59(4):582–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chinn MD (2005) Getting serious about the twin deficits, council special report 10. Council on Foreign Relations, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Chinn M, Ito H (2007) Current account balances, financial development and institutions: assaying the world ‘savings glut. J Int Money Financ 26(4):546–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chinn M, Ito H (2008) Global current account imbalances: American fiscal policy versus east Asian savings. Rev Int Econ 16(3):479–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chinn M, Prasad E (2003) Medium-term determinants of current accounts in industrial and developing countries: an empirical exploration. J Int Econ 59(1):47–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chinn MD, Eichengreen B, Ito H (2014) A forensic analysis of global imbalances. Oxf Econ Pap 66:465–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Corsetti G, Muller GJ (2006) Twin deficits: squaring theory, evidence and common sense. Econ Policy 21:597–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cripps F, Godley W (1976) A formal analysis of the Cambridge economic policy group model. Economica 43(172):335–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Erceg CJ, Guerrieri L, Gust C (2005) Expansionary fiscal shocks and the US trade deficit. Int Financ 8:363–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feldstein M, Horioka C (1980) Domestic saving and international capital flows. Econ J 90:314–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Giavazzi F, Pagano M (1990) Can severe fiscal contractions be expansionary? Tales from two small European countries. NBER Macroecon Annu 5:75–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gruber JW, Kamin SB (2007) Explaining the global pattern of current account imbalances. J Int Money Financ 26:500–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. International Monetary Fund, (1995) Guidelines for fiscal adjustment; how should the fiscal stance be assessed? IMF Pamphlet Series, no 49, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. International Monetary Fund (2004) Are global imbalances at a turning point, World Economic Outlook, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC. 115-154Google Scholar
  20. Johnson HG (1977) The monetary approach to the balance of payments: a non-technical guide. J Int Econ 7:251–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kahn RF, Posner MV (1974) Cambridge economics and the balance of payments. London and Cambridge Bulletin 85:19–32Google Scholar
  22. Kreinin, M. E.and Officer, L.H. (1978) The monetary approach to the balance of payments: a survey, Princeton Studies in International Finance, 43, New Jersey, Princeton UniversityGoogle Scholar
  23. Meyrelles Filho SF, Jayme FG, Libanio G (2013) Balance of payments constrained growth: a post Keynesian model with capital flows. J Post Keynes Econ 35(3):373–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller SM, Russek FS (1989) Are the twin deficits really related? Contemp Econ Policy 7(4):91–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Normandin M (1999) Budget deficit persistence and the twin deficits hypothesis. J Int Econ 49(1):171–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Polak JJ (1957) Monetary analysis of income formation and payments problems. IMF Staff Pap 6:1–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Seater JJ (1983) Ricardian equivalence. J Econ Lit 31:142–190Google Scholar
  28. Shone R (1980) The monetary approach to the balance of payments: stock-flow equilibria. Oxf Econ Pap 32:200–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Whitman MVN (1975) Global monetarism and the monetary approach to the balance of payments. Brookings Pap Econ Act 2:491–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Claremont Graduate UniversityClaremontUSA
  2. 2.Loughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations