Muzhzhavleva T.V., Ivanova N.N., Uniskova M.A.

External public debt in the system of economic theory: a comparative analysis of management models (using the example of the USA, Turkey, Mozambique and Kazakhstan)

Keywords: external public debt, debt sustainability, economic theory, institutional economics, comparative analysis, neoclassical paradigm, Keynesian paradigm, USA, Turkey, Mozambique, Kazakhstan

The problem of external public debt is at the intersection of macroeconomic theory, the theory of international economic relations and institutional economics. In classical political economy, beginning with the works of David Ricardo, public debt was viewed as a burden passed on to future generations, which justified the need for a balanced budget. The Keynesian tradition revised this view, justifying the possibility of using deficit financing to stimulate aggregate demand during cyclical downturns. However, modern realities, characterized by an unprecedented increase in sovereign debt in developed countries and periodic debt crises in developing economies, necessitate a theoretical rethink of existing approaches. The relevance of the study increases in the context of fragmentation of the global financial market, when countries have unequal access to capital sources and traditional criteria for debt sustainability require adjustments taking into account the institutional characteristics of national economies. The purpose of the study is to identify and systematise the theoretical principles governing the management of external public debt, based on a comparative analysis of practices in countries at different stages of economic development, with a view to deepening the understanding of the macroeconomic role of sovereign debt. Materials and methods. The theoretical framework for this study is based on the work of Russian and international scholars in the fields of macroeconomic theory, public finance theory and institutional economics. The methodological framework is represented by three theoretical paradigms: neoclassical, Keynesian, and institutional. The empirical database includes official data from national ministries of finance and central banks, statistical databases (Statista, CEIC Data), as well as publications from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. The chronological framework of the study covers the years 2020–2024. The methodological tools include methods of theoretical analysis (categorical analysis, comparative analysis of economic schools), a systematic approach, as well as methods of empirical generalization. Results. A comparative analysis of foreign debt management practices in the United States, Turkey, Mozambique and Kazakhstan revealed key theoretical patterns. In the US, the country’s debt position remains stable despite high debt levels (126.5% of GDP) thanks to institutional factors: the dollar’s status as a reserve currency, the depth of the domestic financial market, and the diversification of debt instruments across maturity dates. In Turkey, where a high proportion of external debt is denominated in foreign currency (46.1% at the end of 2024), debt management and monetary policy are interdependent, as evidenced by the use of instruments that go beyond the scope of traditional debt management. The example of Mozambique illustrates how the ‘debt trap’ mechanism works: an excessive debt burden (138.6% of GDP), combined with a predominance of external liabilities (65.8%) and the use of a significant proportion of borrowed funds to cover the budget deficit (30.8%), leads to a restriction on the country’s capacity for independent economic development and the entrenchment of long-term dependence on international creditors. Kazakhstan adopts a balanced approach: a relative balance between domestic and external debt (53.5% and 46.5% respectively), the investment-oriented nature of borrowing (over 50% of funds are channelled into infrastructure and energy) and a well-developed institutional environment ensure debt sustainability even as the absolute volume of debt increases. Conclusions. Traditional quantitative criteria of debt sustainability (debt-to-GDP ratio, deficit-to-GDP ratio) are insufficient to explain differences in debt sustainability given the institutional diversity of national economies. The theoretical distinction between investment debt and consumer debt is borne out by empirical evidence: channelling resources into the creation of long-term assets builds the capacity to service future liabilities, whereas financing current expenditure leads to an accumulation of debt. Debt management requires integration into a broader system of macroeconomic policy, since in an open economy with a high proportion of external liabilities in foreign currency, monetary policy and debt management policy become interdependent. The institutional approach provides the most comprehensive explanation for differences in the effectiveness of debt management policies: it is by taking institutional factors into account (such as the status of the national currency, the development of the domestic financial market, and formal regulations and informal practices governing borrowing) that one can account for differences in debt sustainability among countries with comparable quantitative indicators.

About authors

Muzhzhavleva Tatiana V.

Doctor of Economics Sciences, Professor, Department of Economic Theory and International Economic Relations, Chuvash State University, Russia, Cheboksary (csaprdom@mail.ru; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2948-7225)

Ivanova Nadezhda N.

Candidate of Technical Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematical and Hardware Support of Information Systems, Chuvash State University, Russia, Cheboksary (niva_mail@mail.ru; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7130-8588)

Uniskova Maria A.

Leading Economist, Department of Material and Technical Supply, PC Cheboksary Aggregate Plant LLC, Russia, Cheboksary (uniskovammm@mail.ru; )

Article link

Muzhzhavleva T.V., Ivanova N.N., Uniskova M.A. External public debt in the system of economic theory: a comparative analysis of management models (using the example of the USA, Turkey, Mozambique and Kazakhstan) [Electronic resource] // Oeconomia et Jus. – 2026. – №2. P. 40-52. – URL: https://oecomia-et-jus.ru/en/single/2026/2/4/. DOI: 10.47026/2499-9636-2026-2-40-52.