Business Economics

, Volume 53, Issue 4, pp 184–194 | Cite as

Explaining the slow U.S. recovery: 2010–2017

  • Ray C. FairEmail author
Original Article


This paper argues that the slow U.S. recovery after the 2008–2009 recession was due to sluggish government spending. The analysis uses a structural macroeconometric model. Conditional on government policy, the errors in predicting output for the 2009.4–2017.4 period are within what one would expect historically. Productivity and labor force participation are endogenous variables in the model, and so their behaviors in this period are a consequence of the slow growth rather than a cause.


slow recovery productivity labor force participation 


  1. Abraham, Katherine G., and Melissa S. Kearney, 2018, “Explaining the Decline in the U.S. Employment-to-Population Ratio: A Review of the Evidence,” NBER Working Paper 24333, February.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, Scott R., Nicholas Bloom, and Steven J. Davis. 2015. Measuring Economic Policy Uncertainty. NBER Working Paper 21633.Google Scholar
  3. Cashin, David, Jamie Lenney, Byron Lutz, and William Peterman. 2017. Fiscal Policy and Aggregate Demand in the U.S. Before, During, and Following the Great Recession. Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2017-061. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.Google Scholar
  4. Eichengreen, Barry. 2015. Hall of Mirrors: The Great Depression, the Great Recession, and the Uses and Misuses of History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Fair, Ray C. 1969. The Short-Run Demand for Workers and Hours. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  6. Fair, Ray C. 1985. Excess Labor and the Business Cycle. The American Economic Review 75: 239–245.Google Scholar
  7. Fair, Ray C. 2004. Testing for a New Economy in the 1990s. Business Economics January: 43–53.Google Scholar
  8. Fair, Ray C. 2005. Policy Effects in the Post Boom U.S. Economy. Topics in Macroeconomics 5 (1): 19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fair, Ray C. 2017. Household Wealth and Macroeconomic Activity: 2008–2013. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking March–April: 495–523.Google Scholar
  10. Fair, Ray C. 2018. Macroeconometric Modeling: 2018.
  11. Fay, Jon A., and James L. Medoff. 1985. Labor and Output over the Business Cycle: Some Direct Evidence. The American Economic Review 75: 638–655.Google Scholar
  12. Fernald, John G., Robert E. Hall, James H. Stock, and Mark W. Watson. 2017. The Disappointing Recovery of Output after 2009. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity Spring: 1–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hansen, Gary D., and Lee F. Ohanian. 2016. Neoclassical Models in Macroeconomics. NBER Working Paper 22122, March.Google Scholar
  14. Kydland, Finn E., and Carlos E.J.M. Zarazaga. 2016. Fiscal Sentiment and the Weak Recovery from the Great Recession: A Quantitative Exploration. Journal of Monetary Economics 79: 109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ohanian, Lee E. 2017. The Great Recession in the Shadow of the Great Depression: A Review Essay on Hall of Mirrors: The Great Depression, the Great Recession, and the Uses and Misuses of Hostory, by Barry Eichengren. Journal of Economic Literature 55: 1583–1601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schmalensee, Richard. 2018. The Collapse of Labor Productivity Growth in U.S. Manufacturing After 2010, February.Google Scholar
  17. Sims, Christopher A. 1980. Macroeconomics and Reality. Econometrica 48: 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tinbergen, Jan. 1939. Statistical Testing of Business-Cycle Theories: Part 2: Business Cycles in the United States of America, 1919-1932. Geneva: League of Nations.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National Association for Business Economics 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsYale UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations