A groundbreaking study has recently emerged from the field of economics, challenging conventional wisdom about debt ownership within various capitalist regimes. The research, authored by İ. Özmen and published in the prestigious International Review of Economics, offers a fresh comparative analysis that distinguishes between state-held debt and market-held debt. This nuanced exploration not only deepens our understanding of sovereign and private debt dynamics but also sheds light on the broader implications these distinctions have for economic stability and policy formulation across different capitalist frameworks.
What sets this study apart is its rigorous empirical approach, which goes beyond the traditional binary of public versus private debt. Instead, Özmen categorizes debt into state-controlled obligations and those absorbed by market actors, providing a layered and systematic overview of debt distribution. This methodology reveals patterns that have been obscured by previous research, particularly the intricate ways in which various capitalist systems allocate financial burdens between the state apparatus and private markets, thereby influencing macroeconomic outcomes.
In many capitalist countries, the boundary between state and market debt has become increasingly blurred, especially in the wake of global financial crises and expansive fiscal interventions. Özmen’s comparative evidence suggests that this boundary is not merely blurred but fundamentally varies depending on the ideological and institutional setup of each regime. For example, more interventionist regimes tend to concentrate debt within state institutions, whereas liberal market economies distribute debt more extensively across financial markets. This divergence has critical implications for how these economies respond to financial shocks and manage sovereign risk.
The study’s analytical framework incorporates technical measures such as debt-to-GDP ratios, maturity profiles, and creditor composition to dissect how liabilities are structured and accounted for in different regimes. The findings highlight that debt issuance strategies are deeply embedded in political economy contexts. In state-heavy capitalist systems, debt is often centralized, enabling governments to negotiate better terms but potentially increasing fiscal rigidity. Conversely, market-dependent regimes rely on dispersed debt instruments that enhance liquidity but may expose the state to volatile market sentiments and higher refinancing risks.
One of the pivotal insights from Özmen’s research lies in the interaction between debt ownership and monetary policy effectiveness. The study demonstrates that when debt is predominantly held by the state, monetary authorities retain greater control over fiscal financing, allowing for more coordinated policy responses during economic downturns. Alternatively, when debt resides largely in the market, monetary policy is hampered by fragmented creditor interests, which can dilute stimulus impact and exacerbate economic fluctuations.
The research also delves into the regulatory environments that shape debt structures. State-centric capitalist regimes often impose more stringent borrowing constraints on private sectors, pushing excess demand for borrowing onto public finances. This phenomenon results in elevated public debt levels but also in a more predictable credit environment. Market-oriented regimes incentivize private borrowing through less restrictive regulations but risk systemic vulnerabilities triggered by leverage cycles and credit booms, influencing where the debt ultimately "belongs."
Özmen’s comparative approach leverages extensive data across several capitalist countries with distinct institutional architectures, including social democratic, liberal, and mixed-market economies. This broad spectrum allows for a granular evaluation of how legal frameworks, fiscal federalism, and financial market development interact to distribute debt ownership. Such a cross-country synthesis provides valuable lessons for policymakers aiming to optimize debt management and reduce systemic risk.
In terms of implications for financial markets, the paper underscores that the nature of debt ownership shapes investor behavior and market sentiment. State-held debts typically carry implicit guarantees, often perceived as safer, thereby affecting yields and capital flows. Conversely, market-held debts are subject to more pronounced risk premia reflecting market dynamics. These differences influence cost of capital, investment decisions, and ultimately economic growth trajectories.
Another layer of complexity addressed in the study is the consequence of debt ownership patterns on sovereign credit ratings and bond market performance. More centralized state debt could lead to higher creditworthiness due to consolidated fiscal management, but it may also signal potential political risks related to policy shifts. Diffuse market debt arrangements might offer diversification benefits but introduce volatility due to fragmented risk perceptions among creditors.
The research further explores the historical evolution of debt ownership and its alignment with shifts in capitalist regimes over time. Özmen traces how transitions from post-war welfare states to neoliberal market-oriented policies have transformed debt landscapes. These structural transformations reveal trade-offs between social security and market efficiency, with profound effects on government borrowing practices and the distributional impacts of debt servicing.
Moreover, the study addresses the role of international institutions and supranational governance in influencing domestic debt dynamics. In regimes with strong ties to global financial institutions or regional economic blocs, debt allocation mechanisms often reflect negotiated compromises balancing sovereignty with market discipline. This tension manifests in varied fiscal consolidation strategies and debt restructuring approaches following fiscal distress.
Özmen’s findings bear significant relevance for ongoing debates about fiscal sustainability amid rising global debt levels exacerbated by crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding who actually "owns" debt—whether the state or market actors—is essential for crafting effective responses that mitigate risks of default, inflationary pressures, and loss of investor confidence. The nuanced delineation of debt ownership offers a refined lens through which policymakers can assess fiscal space and economic resilience.
The implications extend beyond economics into social and political domains. The ownership of debt shapes power relations between governments, financial sectors, and citizens. State-held debt may entail greater democratic accountability over fiscal choices, whereas market-held debt could lead to diminished public oversight and increased influence of financial intermediaries. These dynamics raise critical questions about governance and equity in managing national debt burdens.
Technically, the study contributes novel econometric modeling to distinguish debt categories and assess their impact on macroeconomic indicators. Özmen employs advanced decomposition techniques and panel data analyses to control for endogeneity and cross-country heterogeneity, ensuring robust inference. This methodological innovation enhances the reliability of comparative debt studies and establishes a new benchmark for future research.
This work resonates strongly in the current era of economic uncertainty where debt management strategies are pivotal for recovery and long-term growth. As governments worldwide grapple with balancing stimulus spending and fiscal discipline, Özmen’s comparative insights guide policymakers in tailoring debt issuance frameworks according to their regime’s institutional realities, promoting both stability and flexibility.
Ultimately, this research calls for a paradigm shift in how debt is perceived, managed, and analyzed. Moving beyond simplistic dichotomies, it advocates for a regime-specific understanding that aligns debt policies with institutional strengths and vulnerabilities. This approach not only enriches academic discourse but also equips stakeholders with actionable knowledge to navigate the complex financial architecture of modern capitalist economies.
The profound contributions of this study illuminate the multifaceted nature of debt ownership and its far-reaching consequences. By bridging theory with practical implications, Özmen provides a vital compass for economists, policymakers, and market participants striving to reconcile fiscal imperatives with sustainable economic development in an ever-evolving capitalist landscape.
Subject of Research: Comparative analysis of debt ownership between state and market sectors across several capitalist regimes.
Article Title: Which debt belongs to the state and which debt belongs to the market? Comparative new evidence several capitalist regimes.
Article References: Özmen, İ. Which debt belongs to the state and which debt belongs to the market? Comparative new evidence several capitalist regimes. Int Rev Econ 72, 20 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12232-025-00493-y
Image Credits: AI Generated
