National debt – a burden on future generations?

The idea of burdening future generations is being used by the government to justify a variety of public policies from austerity to spending cuts. In his first prime ministerial address Rishi Sunak stated, ‘The government I lead will not leave the next generation, your children, and grandchildren, with a debt to settle that we were too weak to pay ourselves.’ Sunak is appealing to the idea that high levels of national debt, like the debt we took out during covid, unfairly burden the next generation. Concerns about national debt often take on this type of intergenerational character. A common worry is that we betray our children and grandchildren by taking on too much debt. We benefit from the debt while saddling the next generation with the costs after we are gone. The next generation must pay the debt – rather than fund their own projects – this leaves them worse off than their parents. It follows that we are unfairly taking resources from future people and harming their interests. But this view of public debt is incomplete. The issue of public debt and burdening the next generation is far more complex. In a recent article for Political Studies, I outline when long-term debt wrongs our successors and when it does not.

Burdening the next generation

The government’s position is that we burden our children by taking on too much national debt. We therefore need to reduce national debt, so we don’t impose costs on future people. And we do this through austerity. In other words, we reduce national debt through tax increases, government spending cuts, or a combination of both. But it is awkward for the government to invoke ‘protecting the young’ to justify austerity. When governments cut spending on essential things like education, social security, and public services it is the younger generations that suffer the most.

Many studies show the severe damage of austerity on children’s health, cognitive, behavioural, and emotional development. The UK is one of the richest countries in the world, yet our policies are entrenching high levels of childhood poverty. Children are burdened in education due to covid disruptions and hunger is now the biggest challenge in the classroom. The use of food banks has risen by 81% in the last 5 years. Trussell Trust has distributed 2.1 million emergency food parcels this year, with 832,000 parcels going to children. To enforce austerity on children who are already suffering is beyond cruel. To justify this on grounds that it is in their future interest is sanctimonious. The damage to children’s health and education will extend long into the future.

Policies of austerity impoverish and constrain younger generations rather than liberate them.  If we think that increasing public debt is wrong because it unfairly burdens the next generation, then it is difficult to see how we can justify austerity. We will be creating or preserving the very conditions we seek to diminish.

Liberating the future

The government’s position is that we need to reduce national debt, so we don’t impose costs on future people. This view of national debt is incomplete. It loses sight of the fact that governments loan money to invest in productive things. The present generation can still take on debt and invest in projects that will have a high return on investment in the future. The government is focusing on the distribution of the costs of debt-financed public spending between generations and not on the distribution of the benefits of public spending over time. That fact that some costs of national debt can be transferred to future generations does not imply that future generations are worse-off. Whether the loan has been spent wisely or foolishly is highly relevant. If the borrowed funds are spent on a short-term project (for example, an enormous firework display) and some of the costs are transferred to the future, then the future generation will be worse-off as a result of the loan. However, if the borrowed funds are spent on a project whose benefits extend into the future, then future generations may be better off as a result of the loan.

My point is simply that public projects undertaken today can aid future generations in lots of important ways. A focus on national debt over time makes us aware of the ways we might improve the position of our children and grandchildren. National debt can be used to finance pro-young investments in education, in the labour market, tackling climate change. Given the time pressures, this last option will not be available to future generations. It seems deeply unfair to pass on debts (responding covid, an energy crisis, and Truss economics), but refuse to help the next generation respond and prepare for future crisis when we have the opportunity to do so.

Author Biography

 

Nicola Mulkeen is a lecturer in political philosophy at Newcastle University. This semester, she is a visiting academic at the Centre for the Study of Social Justice, University of Oxford. Her work is in contemporary political theory, specifically normative questions that fall at the intersection of politics, philosophy, and economics. She is currently writing a book on Exploitation & Time: A Theory of Intergenerational Exploitation.