Cyclically, the debate on Keynes’ economic policies reemerge. The economic impact of the pandemic caused by COVID-19 has relaunched the discussion about the importance of Keynesian policies, the multipliers effects, and their impact on stimulating economies. This paper aims to analyze the importance and relevance of the Keynesian multiplier before the pandemic, in a period without experiencing exceptional aggregate shocks. The main focus of the research is to examine the shortcomings of the public investment multiplier, which plays a central role in Keynesian theory. Despite the undeniable relevance of the concept, the issue is to understand the extent to which the multiplier is still relevant in specific contexts. The research presents empirical evidence which suggests that the effects of public investment depend on structural characteristics of economies specifically trade liberalization, the dimension of internal markets, the question of countries having the freedom to issue their currency, and the issue of currencies being accepted as an international reserve. A sample of 35 OECD countries was used for the period 2010–2018. The Keynesian public investment multiplier was calculated for several countries and the obtained values were related to various correlations carried out to assess the relationship between public investment, national income, and specific characteristics of the economies to which the multipliers are sensitive. The results obtained contrast in terms of short-term and long-term impacts so, is at least dubious, that one can rely on Keynesian public policies to boost economies at least in the absence of substantial shocks to aggregate demand.

We investigate the impact on intertemporal distribution caused by a change of policy from tax to deficit financing of public investment, using a simple theoretical framework which combines the one-period McGuire-Olson economy with the conventional long-run Solow economy. This theoretical framework provides a simple way to highlight some significant interdependencies between private and public investments as well as the negative impact of taxation on aggregate productivity, and to trace some possible transmission mechanisms between deficit financing policies and the long-run path of consumption per head. The main tentative (theoretical) result is that although under fairly acceptable assumptions the likely impact of a deficit financing policy is to benefit the present at the expense of the future, under equally acceptable assumptions concerning the possibility of an excessive macro private saving–investment propensity, and/or of a significant productivity loss due to the excess burden of taxation, the adverse intertemporal distributional impact of deficit financing might become negligible, or even disappear altogether.