Two capable economists can read the same accounts and reach opposite conclusions. Here is what they are actually arguing about.
Public debt sits at roughly four fifths of the size of the economy, a level that sounds alarming and, depending on what you count, may be less so. The first argument is about scope. Fold in the liabilities of struggling state companies and the picture darkens sharply. Set them aside and the headline number looks more manageable.
The second argument is about composition. A growing share of the debt is now owed at home rather than abroad, much of it to Tunisian banks and, increasingly, financed directly by the central bank. That eases the immediate risk of a foreign currency crisis. It raises a different danger, of an economy where the state absorbs the savings the private sector needs to grow.
Neither camp is inventing its figures. They are answering different questions, about default risk, about growth, about who ultimately pays. Read past the single number and the real debate appears
