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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Notes

  1. 1.

    Some of the comments in the discussion of the FHSW paper argue that more emphasis should have been given to aggregate demand effects in explaining the slow recovery.

  2. 2.

    Users can work with the US model on line or can download the model and related software to work with it on their own computer. If the model is downloaded, it can be modified and reestimated. Many of the results in MM can be duplicated on line. The US model is a subset of a larger multicountry model, the MC model, but for purposes of this paper the US model has been used alone.

  3. 3.

    As noted in Sect. 2, the January 30, 2018, version of the US model is used here. This version uses actual (sometimes preliminary) data through the fourth quarter of 2017. The data thus do not incorporate the NIPA revisions released in July 2018. The revisions were fairly minor, and it is unlikely that the present results would change much if the revised data had been used.

  4. 4.

    There is actually a lot of macro information in Fig. 5, at least from the perspective of the US model. The results in Fair (2004) show that most of the boom in the U.S. economy in the last half of the 1990s was due to the increase in AA—the wealth effect at work. The results in Fair (2005) show that much of the sluggish economy in the 2000.4–2004.3 period was due to the fall in AA. Finally, the results in Fair (2017) show that much of the 2008–2009 recession was due to the huge fall in AA. In this latter case, much of the fall in AA was from the huge decline in housing prices.

  5. 5.

    If the initial estimate of an equation suggests that the error term is serially correlated, the equation is reestimated under the assumption that the error term follows an autoregressive process (usually first order). The structural coefficients in the equation and the autoregressive coefficient or coefficients are jointly estimated (by 2SLS). The \(\hat{u}_t\) error terms are after adjustment for any autoregressive properties, and they are taken to be iid for purposes of the draws.

References

  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.

  2. Baker, Scott R., Nicholas Bloom, and Steven J. Davis. 2015. Measuring Economic Policy Uncertainty. NBER Working Paper 21633.

  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.

  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.

  8. Fair, Ray C. 2005. Policy Effects in the Post Boom U.S. Economy. Topics in Macroeconomics 5 (1): 19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fair, Ray C. 2017. Household Wealth and Macroeconomic Activity: 2008–2013. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking March–April: 495–523.

  10. Fair, Ray C. 2018. Macroeconometric Modeling: 2018. https://fairmodel.econ.yale.edu/mmm2/mm2018.pdf.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hansen, Gary D., and Lee F. Ohanian. 2016. Neoclassical Models in Macroeconomics. NBER Working Paper 22122, March.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Schmalensee, Richard. 2018. The Collapse of Labor Productivity Growth in U.S. Manufacturing After 2010, February.

  17. Sims, Christopher A. 1980. Macroeconomics and Reality. Econometrica 48: 1–48.

    Article  Google 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 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ray C. Fair.

Appendix: Computing standard errors

Appendix: Computing standard errors

There are 25 estimated equations in the US model, but two of these have been dropped for purposes of this paper—the capital gains equation and the Fed rule. This gives 23 equations. The estimation period is 1954.1–2017.4, 256 quarters. For each estimated equation, there are 256 estimated residuals. Let \(\hat{u}_t\) denote the 23-dimension vector of the estimated residuals for quarter t, \(t = 1,\ldots ,256\).Footnote 5

The solution period is 2009.4–2017.4, 33 quarters. The model was solved 2,000 times for this period. Each trial is as follows. First, 33 error vectors are drawn with replacement from the 256 error vectors \(\hat{u}_t\), \(t = 1,\ldots ,256\). These errors are added to the equations, and the model is solved dynamically for the 2009.4–2017.4 period. The predicted values are recorded. This is one trial. This procedure is then repeated 2000 times, which gives 2000 predicted values of each variable. The mean and standard error are then computed for each variable. See MM [Sects. 2.6, 2.7] for more details.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fair, R.C. Explaining the slow U.S. recovery: 2010–2017. Bus Econ 53, 184–194 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s11369-018-0095-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • slow recovery
  • productivity
  • labor force participation