Business leaders and policymakers want to know how long it will take for the economy to recover after an economic boom ends in a recession, as it did when the real-estate bubble burst. According to research by Chicago Booth PhD candidate Yunzhi Hu, the recovery path is determined by the length of the preceding economic boom: each additional year of an economic boom delays the recovery by around two-and-a-half months, the statistics reveal.
The trajectory reflects a type of dance between banks and entrepreneurs, with banks’ loans allowing young businesses to expand and propel the economy.
Hu created a model that depicts this interaction.
The dance begins with banks, whose lending rules fluctuate depending on the state of the economy. In periods of economic stability, banks are more likely to lend to high-quality entrepreneurs running start-ups and fledgling enterprises. Banks lend to this group after conducting a credit check that can be time-consuming and costly, including business plans and character assessments.
How long do recessionary impacts last?
The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) keeps track of the average length of US recessions. According to NBER data, the average recession lasted 11 months from 1945 to 2009. This is a step forward from previous eras: The average recession lasted 21.6 months from 1854 to 1919. The United States has had four recessions in the last 30 years:
- The Covid-19 Recession is a period of economic downturn. The most recent recession in the United States started in February 2020 and lasted only two months, making it the shortest in history.
- The Great Recession of 2008-2009 (December 2007 to June 2009). As previously stated, a real estate bubble contributed to the Great Recession. Although the Great Recession was not as bad as the Great Depression, its length and severity gave it the same moniker. The Great Recession lasted almost twice as long as other US recessions, lasting 18 months.
- The Dot Com Bubble Burst (March 2001 to November 2001). The United States was dealing with a number of big economic issues at the turn of the 2000, including the impact from the tech bubble burst and accounting scandals at businesses like Enron, all of which were topped off by the 9/11 terrorist attacks. These issues combined to cause a temporary recession, from which the economy soon recovered.
- The Recession After the Gulf War (July 1990 to March 1991). The United States experienced a brief, eight-month recession at the start of the 1990s, which was triggered in part by rising oil prices during the First Gulf War.
How long does it take for a recession to fully recover?
The recovery from the latest severe downturn, the Great Recession, took several years. According to data from the Economic Policy Institute, it took 51 months for employment to return to pre-recession levels.
How long did it take to recover from the financial crisis of 2008?
When the decade-long expansion in US housing market activity peaked in 2006, the Great Moderation came to an end, and residential development began to decline. Losses on mortgage-related financial assets began to burden global financial markets in 2007, and the US economy entered a recession in December 2007. Several prominent financial firms were in financial difficulties that year, and several financial markets were undergoing substantial upheaval. The Federal Reserve responded by providing liquidity and support through a variety of measures aimed at improving the functioning of financial markets and institutions and, as a result, limiting the damage to the US economy. 1 Nonetheless, the economic downturn deteriorated in the fall of 2008, eventually becoming severe and long enough to be dubbed “the Great Recession.” While the US economy reached bottom in the middle of 2009, the recovery in the years that followed was exceptionally slow in certain ways. In response to the severity of the downturn and the slow pace of recovery that followed, the Federal Reserve provided unprecedented monetary accommodation. Furthermore, the financial crisis prompted a slew of important banking and financial regulation reforms, as well as congressional legislation that had a substantial impact on the Federal Reserve.
Rise and Fall of the Housing Market
Following a long period of expansion in US house building, home prices, and housing loans, the recession and crisis struck. This boom began in the 1990s and accelerated in the mid-2000s, continuing unabated through the 2001 recession. Between 1998 and 2006, average home prices in the United States more than doubled, the largest increase in US history, with even bigger advances in other locations. During this time, home ownership increased from 64 percent in 1994 to 69 percent in 2005, while residential investment increased from around 4.5 percent of US GDP to nearly 6.5 percent. Employment in housing-related sectors contributed for almost 40% of net private sector job creation between 2001 and 2005.
The development of the housing market was accompanied by an increase in household mortgage borrowing in the United States. Household debt in the United States increased from 61 percent of GDP in 1998 to 97 percent in 2006. The rise in home mortgage debt appears to have been fueled by a number of causes. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) maintained a low federal funds rate after the 2001 recession, and some observers believe that by keeping interest rates low for a “long period” and only gradually increasing them after 2004, the Federal Reserve contributed to the expansion of housing market activity (Taylor 2007). Other researchers, on the other hand, believe that such variables can only explain for a small part of the rise in housing activity (Bernanke 2010). Furthermore, historically low interest rates may have been influenced by significant savings accumulations in some developing market economies, which acted to keep interest rates low globally (Bernanke 2005). Others attribute the surge in borrowing to the expansion of the mortgage-backed securities market. Borrowers who were deemed a bad credit risk in the past, maybe due to a poor credit history or an unwillingness to make a big down payment, found it difficult to get mortgages. However, during the early and mid-2000s, lenders offered high-risk, or “subprime,” mortgages, which were bundled into securities. As a result, there was a significant increase in access to housing financing, which helped to drive the ensuing surge in demand that drove up home prices across the country.
Effects on the Financial Sector
The extent to which home prices might eventually fall became a significant question for the pricing of mortgage-related securities after they peaked in early 2007, according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency House Price Index, because large declines in home prices were viewed as likely to lead to an increase in mortgage defaults and higher losses to holders of such securities. Large, nationwide drops in home prices were uncommon in US historical data, but the run-up in home prices was unique in terms of magnitude and extent. Between the first quarter of 2007 and the second quarter of 2011, property values declined by more than a fifth on average across the country. As financial market participants faced significant uncertainty regarding the frequency of losses on mortgage-related assets, this drop in home values contributed to the financial crisis of 2007-08. Money market investors became concerned of subprime mortgage exposures in August 2007, putting pressure on certain financial markets, particularly the market for asset-backed commercial paper (Covitz, Liang, and Suarez 2009). The investment bank Bear Stearns was bought by JPMorgan Chase with the help of the Federal Reserve in the spring of 2008. Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy in September, and the Federal Reserve aided AIG, a significant insurance and financial services firm, the next day. The Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation were all approached by Citigroup and Bank of America for assistance.
The Federal Reserve’s assistance to specific financial firms was hardly the only instance of central bank credit expansion in reaction to the crisis. The Federal Reserve also launched a slew of new lending programs to help a variety of financial institutions and markets. A credit facility for “primary dealers,” the broker-dealers that act as counterparties to the Fed’s open market operations, as well as lending programs for money market mutual funds and the commercial paper market, were among them. The Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF), which was launched in collaboration with the US Department of Treasury, was aimed to relieve credit conditions for families and enterprises by offering credit to US holders of high-quality asset-backed securities.
To avoid an increase in bank reserves that would drive the federal funds rate below its objective as banks attempted to lend out their excess reserves, the Federal Reserve initially funded the expansion of Federal Reserve credit by selling Treasury securities. The Federal Reserve, on the other hand, got the right to pay banks interest on their excess reserves in October 2008. This encouraged banks to keep their reserves rather than lending them out, reducing the need for the Federal Reserve to offset its increased lending with asset reductions.2
Effects on the Broader Economy
The housing industry was at the forefront of not only the financial crisis, but also the broader economic downturn. Residential construction jobs peaked in 2006, as did residential investment. The total economy peaked in December 2007, the start of the recession, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. The drop in general economic activity was slow at first, but it accelerated in the fall of 2008 when financial market stress reached a peak. The US GDP plummeted by 4.3 percent from peak to trough, making this the greatest recession since World War II. It was also the most time-consuming, spanning eighteen months. From less than 5% to 10%, the jobless rate has more than doubled.
The FOMC cut its federal funds rate objective from 4.5 percent at the end of 2007 to 2 percent at the start of September 2008 in response to worsening economic conditions. The FOMC hastened its interest rate decreases as the financial crisis and economic contraction worsened in the fall of 2008, bringing the rate to its effective floor a target range of 0 to 25 basis points by the end of the year. The Federal Reserve also launched the first of several large-scale asset purchase (LSAP) programs in November 2008, purchasing mortgage-backed assets and longer-term Treasury securities. These purchases were made with the goal of lowering long-term interest rates and improving financial conditions in general, hence boosting economic activity (Bernanke 2012).
Although the recession ended in June 2009, the economy remained poor. Economic growth was relatively mild in the first four years of the recovery, averaging around 2%, and unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment, remained at historically high levels. In the face of this sustained weakness, the Federal Reserve kept the federal funds rate goal at an unusually low level and looked for new measures to provide extra monetary accommodation. Additional LSAP programs, often known as quantitative easing, or QE, were among them. In its public pronouncements, the FOMC began conveying its goals for future policy settings more fully, including the situations in which very low interest rates were likely to be appropriate. For example, the committee stated in December 2012 that exceptionally low interest rates would likely remain appropriate at least as long as the unemployment rate remained above a threshold of 6.5 percent and inflation remained no more than a half percentage point above the committee’s longer-run goal of 2 percent. This “forward guidance” technique was meant to persuade the public that interest rates would remain low at least until specific economic conditions were met, exerting downward pressure on longer-term rates.
Effects on Financial Regulation
When the financial market upheaval calmed, the focus naturally shifted to financial sector changes, including supervision and regulation, in order to avoid such events in the future. To lessen the risk of financial difficulty, a number of solutions have been proposed or implemented. The amount of needed capital for traditional banks has increased significantly, with bigger increases for so-called “systemically essential” institutions (Bank for International Settlements 2011a;2011b). For the first time, liquidity criteria will legally limit the amount of maturity transformation that banks can perform (Bank for International Settlements 2013). As conditions worsen, regular stress testing will help both banks and regulators recognize risks and will require banks to spend earnings to create capital rather than pay dividends (Board of Governors 2011).
New provisions for the treatment of large financial institutions were included in the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. The Financial Stability Oversight Council, for example, has the authority to classify unconventional credit intermediaries as “Systemically Important Financial Institutions” (SIFIs), putting them under Federal Reserve supervision. The act also established the Orderly Liquidation Authority (OLA), which authorizes the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to wind down specific institutions if their failure would pose a significant risk to the financial system. Another section of the legislation mandates that large financial institutions develop “living wills,” which are detailed plans outlining how the institution could be resolved under US bankruptcy law without endangering the financial system or requiring government assistance.
The financial crisis of 2008 and the accompanying recession, like the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Great Inflation of the 1970s, are important areas of research for economists and policymakers. While it may be years before the causes and ramifications of these events are fully known, the attempt to unravel them provides a valuable opportunity for the Federal Reserve and other agencies to acquire lessons that can be used to shape future policy.
How long does it take for a recession to end?
This recession differs from others in that it occurred extremely instantly, as if a spigot had been shut off. That makes one desire that the suffering would end in the same way: swiftly. However, it’s unlikely that the world would reopen with a massive switch; in fact, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo likened the process of reopening enterprises to turning a key “Phone.”
While some activity may restart as some businesses reopen in May and beyond, consumers may remain wary until testing is more widely available and a vaccination is available. Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, has stated that he expects this to happen “Once the virus has been contained and the globe has returned to work and play, the economic recovery can be robust. While he refused to give a specific date, he did say that most people expect it to happen in the second half of the year.
Meanwhile, the statistics are depressing. We just commemorated the creation of 22.4 million jobs since the Great Recession. That slate had been wiped clean by April. As of April 23, 26.45 million Americans had filed for jobless benefits since the outbreak began. In comparison, the Great Recession resulted in the loss of 8.7 million jobs.
These figures are fueling fears that we are about to enter a depression, which is essentially a severe recession. It is usually defined as a three-year period of severe economic recession, with a GDP fall of at least 10%. Other indicators include high unemployment and low consumer confidence, both of which we already have in abundance.
But, even as we face an increase in unemployment and a battered economy, it’s critical to keep an eye on the bright side: Every stock market downturn has historically been followed by a strong rebound, and there’s no reason to believe that won’t be the case today. In fact, as long as you retain a long-term view, now is actually a wonderful time to invest.
While no one is enjoying the roller coaster ride that is the recession, we can all look forward to what we can only hope is a brief time of more turbulence followed by a high-speed elevator up to the top.
What happens if the economic downturn lasts too long?
An economic downturn can be catastrophic for both businesses and individuals, because the two are inextricably linked.
Assume a company that makes widgets is experiencing a drop in sales and earnings. It will most likely decide to produce fewer widgets, which means fewer staff will be needed to run the assembly line and sell the widgets to retailers. From there, the consequences spread to a slew of ancillary enterprises near the core widget-maker. Because they are producing fewer widgets, they require less machinery, which has an impact on machine producers and repairers. Because retailers have fewer widgets on their shelves, sales are down. And the widget manufacturer may decide that it does not want to launch a second line of widgets after all, so it ceases to engage in research, design, and marketing.
All of the linked employees’ livelihoods are thus impacted, which might cause them to lose faith in the company. They, in turn, buy less widgets from other companies, putting all widget makers in the same boat. People are also less likely to eat out, travel, or renovate their homes, among other things. They may even cease paying their payments, producing even more problems for goods and service providers. It’s easy to understand how the loop is self-reinforcing. A recession begins as everyone pulls back.
Because corporations are producing and selling fewer widgets, the stock market is likely to collapse as the spending slump deepens. Consumers’ jobs may be lost, or their hours or income may be cut. They may have difficulty paying their bills at that moment, leading to credit problems and, in extreme circumstances, bankruptcy.
As a result of the coronavirus outbreak, we’re already witnessing some of these symptoms. Businesses are closing (some temporarily), and millions of people are losing their full-time jobs or contract work. As a result, they have less money to spend and may struggle to pay their expenses. With a $2 trillion stimulus plan that would deliver cash payouts to Americans, create a fund to lend to small firms, and enhance (and expand eligibility for) unemployment benefits, the government has stepped in to try to alleviate the consequences.
How do you get through a downturn?
But, according to Tara Sinclair, an economics professor at George Washington University and a senior fellow at Indeed’s Hiring Lab, one of the finest investments you can make to recession-proof your life is obtaining an education. Those with a bachelor’s degree or higher have a substantially lower unemployment rate than those with a high school diploma or less during recessions.
“Education is always being emphasized by economists,” Sinclair argues. “Even if you can’t build up a financial cushion, focusing on ensuring that you have some training and abilities that are broadly applicable is quite important.”
How long does it take for a recession to turn into a depression?
Depression vs. Anxiety A recession is a natural element of the business cycle that occurs when the economy declines for two consecutive quarters. A depression, on the other hand, is a prolonged decline in economic activity that lasts years rather than months.
Since 2008, has the economy recovered?
Millions of jobs were lost during the Great Recession, and high unemployment persisted for years after the official end of the recession in June 2009. One of the most terrifying aspects of the recession is how deep it will go, which is why Congress approved and President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in January 2009. ARRA, sometimes known as “The Stimulus,” was a $800 billion package of tax cuts (approximately one-third) and spending programs (about two-thirds), with the principal impact stretched out over three years. Many economists thought that the stimulus was insufficient, while conservatives such as the Tea Party claimed that the emphasis should be budget reduction.
The number of jobs (“total non-farm payrolls,” which includes both private and government workers) peaked at 138.4 million in January 2008, then dropped to 129.7 million in February 2010, a drop of approximately 8.8 million jobs or 6.8%. It took until May 2014 for the number of jobs to return to where they were in January 2008. In comparison, the severe 1981-82 recession resulted in a 3.2 percent employment loss. It took until August 2015 for full-time employment to return to pre-crisis levels.
The unemployment rate (“U-3) increased from 4.7 percent before the recession in November 2008 to 10.0 percent in October 2009, before progressively dropping back to pre-recession levels by May 2016. One thing to consider is that before to the recession, the job count was artificially high and the unemployment rate was artificially low due to an unsustainable housing bubble, which had significantly expanded construction and other jobs. The unemployment rate was close to 6% in 2003, before to the huge increase of subprime lending in 2004-2006. The “U-6” measure of unemployment, which includes people who work part-time for economic reasons or are just weakly engaged to the labor force, went from 8.4% pre-crisis to 17.1% in October 2009. It took until May 2017 for it to return to pre-crisis levels.
Bloomberg maintains a “dashboard” of key labor-market metrics that depicts the labor market’s current degree of recovery.
Is a recession in 2020 likely?
Domestic demand and supply, commerce, and finance are all expected to be significantly disrupted in advanced economies by 2020, resulting in a 7% drop in economic activity. This year, emerging market and developing economies (EMDEs) are predicted to fall by 2.5 percent, the first time in at least sixty years. Per capita incomes are predicted to fall by 3.6 percent this year, plunging millions more people into poverty.
The damage is being felt most acutely in nations where the pandemic has been the most severe and where global trade, tourism, commodity exports, and external financing are heavily reliant. While the severity of the disruption will differ by location, all EMDEs have vulnerabilities that are exacerbated by external shocks. Furthermore, disruptions in education and primary healthcare are likely to have long-term consequences for human capital development.
Global growth is forecast to rebound to 4.2 percent in 2021, with advanced economies growing 3.9 percent and EMDEs growing 4.6 percent, according to the baseline forecast, which assumes that the pandemic recedes sufficiently to allow the lifting of domestic mitigation measures by mid-year in advanced economies and a bit later in EMDEs, that adverse global spillovers ease during the second half of the year, and that financial market dislocations are not long-lasting. However, the future is bleak, and negative risks abound, including the likelihood of a longer-lasting epidemic, financial turmoil, and a pullback from global commerce and supply chains. In a worst-case scenario, the world economy might fall by as much as 8% this year, followed by a sluggish recovery of just over 1% in 2021, with output in EMDEs contracting by about 5% this year.
The GDP of the United States is expected to fall by 6.1 percent this year, owing to the interruptions caused by pandemic-control measures. As a result of widespread epidemics, output in the Euro Area is predicted to fall 9.1 percent in 2020. The Japanese economy is expected to contract by 6.1 percent as a result of preventative measures that have hampered economic activity.
Key features of this historic economic shock are addressed in analytical sections in this edition of Global Economic Prospects:
- What will the depth of the COVID-19 recession be? A study of 183 economies from 1870 through 2021 provides a historical perspective on global recessions.
- Scenarios of potential growth outcomes: Near-term growth estimates are unusually uncertain; various scenarios are investigated.
- How does the pandemic’s impact be exacerbated by informality? The pandemic’s health and economic implications are anticipated to be severe in countries where informality is widespread.
- The situation in low-income countries: The pandemic is wreaking havoc on the poorest countries’ people and economies.
- Regional macroeconomic implications: Each region is vulnerable to the epidemic and the ensuing downturn in its own way.
- Impact on global value chains: Global value chain disruptions can magnify the pandemic’s shocks to trade, production, and financial markets.
- Deep recessions are likely to harm investment in the long run, destroy human capital through unemployment, and promote a retreat from global trade and supply links. (June 2nd edition)
- The Consequences of Low-Cost Oil: Low oil prices, resulting from a historic decline in demand, are unlikely to mitigate the pandemic’s consequences, but they may provide some support during the recovery. (June 2nd edition)
The pandemic emphasizes the urgent need for health and economic policy action, particularly global cooperation, to mitigate its effects, protect vulnerable populations, and build countries’ capacities to prevent and respond to future crises. Strengthening public health systems, addressing difficulties posed by informality and weak safety nets, and enacting reforms to promote robust and sustainable growth are vital for rising market and developing countries, which are particularly vulnerable.
If the pandemic’s effects persist, emerging market and developing economies with fiscal space and reasonable financing circumstances may seek extra stimulus. This should be supported by actions that help restore medium-term fiscal sustainability in a credible manner, such as strengthening fiscal frameworks, increasing domestic revenue mobilization and expenditure efficiency, and improving fiscal and debt transparency. Transparency of all government financial commitments, debt-like instruments, and investments is a critical step toward fostering a favorable investment climate, and it may be achieved this year.
East Asia and the Pacific: The region’s growth is expected to slow to 0.5 percent in 2020, the lowest pace since 1967, due to the pandemic’s interruptions. See the regional overview for further information.
Europe and Central Asia: The regional economy is expected to fall by 4.7 percent, with practically all nations experiencing recessions. See the regional overview for further information.
Latin America and the Caribbean: Pandemic-related shocks will produce a 7.2 percent drop in regional economic activity in 2020.
See the regional overview for further information.
Middle East and North Africa: As a result of the pandemic and oil market changes, economic activity in the Middle East and North Africa is expected to fall by 4.2 percent. See the regional overview for further information.
South Asia: The region’s economy is expected to fall by 2.7 percent in 2020 as pandemic preparedness measures stifle consumption and services, and uncertainty about the virus’s trajectory chills private investment. See the regional overview for further information.
Sub-Saharan Africa’s economy is expected to decline by 2.8 percent in 2020, the steepest contraction on record. See the regional overview for further information.
Is there going to be a recession in 2021?
The US economy will have a recession, but not until 2022. More business cycles will result as a result of Federal Reserve policy, which many enterprises are unprepared for. The decline isn’t expected until 2022, but it might happen as soon as 2023.