Channels, Spring 2018

Channels • 2018 • Volume 2 • Number 2 Page 19 consensus in public finance while critiquing Buchanan’s perceptions of taxation as burdensome and government spending as not uniquely productive. Neither the extent nor the intensity of these critiques indicates a general contemporary consensus against Buchanan’s ideas in Public Principles of Public Debt , especially when understood in light of other reviews. Vance Alvis described the work as “a scholarly presentation” with a “real contribution” that “should be read by everyone seriously concerned with public debt policy.” 30 Alvis presented very little critique in his discussion, choosing instead to relate in more depth the fundamental points Buchanan made. Alvis did contest Buchanan’s third major point, that the internal and external debt were not sharply distinguished, and argues that U.S. institutions may not provide a feasible platform for some elements of Buchanan’s ideas, such as more extensive money creation. 31 Still, overall, Alvis found little to take issue with in Buchanan’s work. Mary Sue Garner Staig, in her review for The Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, agrees with critics like Rolph that Buchanan’s position might have caused “explosive controversy,” but also found his arguments “meticulously logical” and “ably presented and defended.” 32 In her work, as in Alvis’s, there was little defense or presentation of the Keynesian orthodoxy that Buchanan opposed, and a generally sympathetic presentation of the position argued in Public Principles of Public Debt . In contrast to Alvis, Staig argued that Buchanan’s arguments were accessible outside of the economics profession, but otherwise there was significant agreement. Finally, Ansel Sharp, with a review in The American Journal of Economics and Sociology , saw Buchanan’s work as a strong and impactful, if imperfect, perspective on public debt. For instance, Sharp criticized the new orthodoxy in general, contending that Buchanan “argued devastatingly” against it, but the reviewer still maintained some elements of the Keynesian perspective. For instance, Sharp correctly states that there are still key differences between private debt and public debt because public debt has more sure resources to call upon in tax revenue and Federal Reserve support than a private citizen could muster. 33 Like Alvis, Sharp also concluded that Buchanan puts too little weight on the transfer costs which make internal debt distinctly advantageous compared to external debt. 34 Nevertheless, Sharp’s support for the overall thrust of Public Principles of Public Debt should not be missed, as he clearly stated “Buchanan successfully replaces the we-owe-it-to-ourselves type of reasoning with sound economic reasoning.” 35 Further, he finds the overall framework Buchanan presents extremely powerful: 30 Vance Alvis, “Public Principles of Public Debt: A Defense and Restatement,” Journal of Finance 14, no. 1 (Mar., 1959), 126. 31 Ibid, 125-126. 32 Mary Sue Garner Staig, “Public Principles of Public Debt,” The Southwestern Science Quarterly 39, no. 3 (Dec., 1958), 266. 33 Ansel Sharp, “A General Theory of Public Debt,” The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 19, no. 1 (Oct., 1959), 109. 34 Ibid, 109. 35 Ibid, 108.