New Wine in Old Bottles: A Meta‐Analysis of Ricardian Equivalence

Abstract

A quantitative review, or meta‐analysis, of 28 empirical studies of the Ricardian equivalence theorem (RET) gives persuasive testament of its falsity. Although there is great dissonance concerning the validity of Ricardian equivalence among contributors and reviewers alike, my meta‐analysis reveals that the testing record, as a whole, entails a strong empirical rejection of RET. This conclusion is further strengthened by the fact that both a study's degrees of freedom and its proper econometric specification increase the likelihood of rejection. A meta‐regression analysis identifies nine study characteristics that help explain the large study‐to‐study variation found among reported RET test results (R2= 83%).

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 20 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.