NBER WORKING PAPER SERIESLONG-TERM DAMAGE FROM THE GREAT RECESSION IN OECD COUNTRIESLaurence M. Ball
Working Paper 20185
http://www.nber.org/papers/w20185

NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH
1050 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138
May 2014

I am grateful for excellent research assistance from Daniel Garcia Molina and for suggestions from
Daniel Leigh. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect theviews of the National Bureau of Economic Research.
NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peerreviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official
NBER publications.
© 2014 by Laurence M. Ball. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs,
may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to
the source.

Long-Term Damage from the Great Recession in OECD Countries
Laurence M. Ball
NBER Working Paper No. 20185
May 2014
JEL No. E32,E65,E66
ABSTRACTThis paper estimates the long-term effects of the global recession of 2008-2009 on output in 23 countries.
I measure these effects by comparing current estimates of potential output from the OECD and IMF
to the path that potential was following in 2007, according to estimates at the time. The losses in potential
output range from almost nothing in Australia and Switzerland to more than 30% in Greece, Hungary,and Ireland; the average loss, weighted by economy size, is 8.4%. Most countries have experienced
strong hysteresis effects: shortfalls of actual output from pre-recession trends have reduced potential
output almost one-for-one. In the hardest-hit economies, the current growth rate of potential is depressed,
implying that the level of lost potential is growing over time.

Laurence M. Ball
Department of Economics
Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD 21218
and NBER
lball@jhu.edu

I. INTRODUCTION
According to textbooks in macroeconomics, a fall in aggregate demand causes a recession inwhich output drops below potential output--the normal level of production given the economy’s
resources and technology. This effect is temporary, however. A recession is followed by a recovery
period in which output returns to potential, and potential itself is not affected significantly by therecession.
This textbook theory is called into question by Cerra and Saxena (2008), Reinhart and Rogoff(2009), and IMF (2009). These studies examine deep recessions around the world and find highly
persistent effects on output. Haltmaier (2012) and Reifschneider et al (2013) argue that these effects
occur because a recession reduces an economy’s potential output. Potential output falls because arecession reduces capital accumulation, leaves scars on workers who lose their jobs, and disrupts
the economic activities that produce technological progress. Some economists use the term
“hysteresis” for these long-term effects of recessions (Blanchard and Summers, 1986).
Experience since the global financial crisis and Great Recession of 2008-2009 has strengthened
the evidence for long-term effects of recessions. Reinhart and Rogoff (2014) point out that output
in many countries is still highly depressed in 2014, with authorities such as the IMF forecasting little
recovery in the next five years. As Summers (2014) puts it: “This financial crisis has confirmed thedoctrine of hysteresis more strongly than anyone might have supposed.”This paper uses OECD estimates of potential output in 23 countries to quantify the long-term
damage from the Great Recession. For each country, I take the path that potential output was
following before the financial crisis, according to OECD estimates from December 2007, and1

extrapolate this path through 2015. I compare this pre-crisis trend to estimates of potential output
in the most recent vintage of OECD data (May 2014), and interpret the differences as effects of therecession. To check robustness, I do a similar exercise using IMF estimates of potential output from
October 2007 and from April 2014.
I find that the loss in potential output from the Great Recession varies greatly across countries,
but is large in most cases. Based on current forecasts for 2015, the loss ranges from almost nothingin Switzerland and Australia to over 30% of potential output in Greece, Hungary, and Ireland. The
average loss for the 23 countries, weighted by the sizes of their economies, is 8.4%.
The analysis also yields two related results. First, in most countries the loss of potential output
is almost as large as the shortfall of actual output from its pre-crisis trend. This finding implies thathysteresis effects have been very strong during the Great Recession.
Second, in the countries hit hardest by the recession, the growth rate of potential output issignificantly lower today than it was before 2008. This growth slowdown means that the level ofpotential output is likely to fall even farther below its pre-crisis trend in the years to come.

II. METHODOLOGY
I examine 23 OECD countries that meet two criteria: (1) the population exceeds one millionand (2) the OECD published estimates of the country’s potential output in its Economic Outlooks
for both December 2007 and May 2014. The 23 countries include 20 that have belonged to theOECD since the 1960s or 70s, plus three that joined in the 1990s: the Czech Republic, Hungary, and2

Poland.1
Beffy et al. (2006) describe the OECD’s method for estimating potential output, which is basedon a production function. OECD economists estimate the long-run trends in labor input, the capitalstock, and total factor productivity. The trend in labor input is determined by trends in the labor
force, unemployment, and hours of work. The various trends are plugged into the production
function to determine the path of potential output.
I take annual series for output, Y, and potential output, Y*, from the OECD Economic Outlook
for May 2014. These series include forecasts of Y and Y* through 2015. To assess the damage fromthe Great Recession, I also need estimates of the levels that potential output would have attained if
not for the recession. To produce these estimates, which I denote by Y**, I examine the paths forpotential output that countries were following as of 2007.
Specifically, the Economic Outlook for December 2007 includes series for potential output
through 2009. I take these pre-crisis data as estimates of Y**, and extend the series beyond 2009
with log-linear extrapolation. Letting y** denote the log of Y**, I compute the average annualchange in y** from 2000 to 2009, and assume the change in y** is constant at that level from 2009
to 2015.2
Figure 1 illustrates this procedure for the United States. The Figure shows the logs of Y, Y*,1

I exclude one country that meets the two criteria, Norway. The OECD series for Norway’s
potential output is volatile, making it difficult to project the pre-crisis path of potential into the
future. This problem may reflect the large share of oil in Norway’s output.
2

The base years for the output series differ across countries, and they differ between the
December 2007 and May 2014 Outlooks. For each country, I make the two vintages of dataconsistent by multiplying the December 2007 series for output and potential output by a ratio,(output in 2000 in the May 2014 data)/(output in 2000 in the December 2007 data).
3and Y**, with logs again denoted by lower-case y’s. In the December 2007 data, the change in y**is almost constant from 2000 to 2009, which implies that the path of y** in the Figure is close to astraight line. In extrapolating the data, I essentially extend the straight line beyond 2009.
In 2013, the difference between y** and y* in the United States was 0.048, and the difference
between y* and y was 0.036. The difference between the levels of Y** and Y*--the loss of potential
output relative to its pre-crisis path--was 4.7% of Y**. The difference between Y* and Y--thecurrent gap between potential and actual output--was 3.4% of Y**. According to current OECD
forecasts, the loss of potential output will grow to 5.3% in 2015 while the output gap will fall to
1.9%. (I compute exact percentage losses because, for some countries considered below, the losses
are large enough to make approximation by log differences inaccurate.)
As a robustness check, I also estimate losses in potential output with data from the IMF’s
World Economic Outlook, using data from April 2014 on actual and potential output and data from
October 2007 on the pre-crisis path of potential. The series in the 2007 WEO end in 2008, so I
extrapolate y** over 2009-2015 based on its path over 2000-2008. The WEO data are available for
17 of the 23 countries in the OECD sample. For the United States, the loss of potential output is7.7% in 2015, somewhat higher than the estimate based on OECD data.
For the United States, several other studies estimate the loss of potential output since the onsetof the financial crisis. Fernald (2012) estimates a loss of potential of 5% in 2011; Reifschneider et
al. estimate 6% in the first quarter of 2013; and CBO (2014) predicts a loss of 7.3% in 2017. My
estimates of lost potential in the U.S. are about the same magnitude as previous estimates.3

3

The CBO says it has reduced its forecast of potential output in 2017 based on reassessmentsof long-run trends in employment and productivity, and that most of this revision is not a result of
the Great Recession. Ball et al. (2014) dispute the CBO’s interpretation of its forecast revision.
4III. RESULTS
Here I estimate the loss of potential output in each of the 23 countries in my sample. I also
compute the average loss across countries weighted by the sizes of their economies, as measured by
Y** in 2015.4
For each country, Figure 2 shows the paths of y, y*, and y**. In most cases, as in the UnitedStates, the path of y** is close to a straight line. Table I gives summary statistics, focusing on losses
in 2013 and forecasted losses in 2015. Several points emerge from the results.
Lost Potential
The damage from the Great Recession varies greatly across countries. For 2015, the losses ofpotential output range from approximately zero in Switzerland and less than 2% in Australia to morethan 30% in Greece, Hungary, and Ireland. The U.S. loss of 5.3% is lower than most. Figure 3
captures this cross-country variation in a bar graph.
For the entire sample, the weighted average of the loss in potential output is 7.2% in 2013 andrises to 8.4% in 2015. Measured in 2015 U.S. dollars, the 8.4% loss for the 23 countries adds up to$4.3 trillion.
The IMF data produce estimated losses that are similar to those from the OECD data. Figure
4 illustrates this point by comparing the 2015 losses of potential based on the two sources, for the
17 countries covered by both. A number of countries fall just above the 45 degree line, indicatingslightly larger losses in the IMF data.

4

Each country’s weight is proportional to the product of (2015 nominal GDP in dollars) and(Y**/Y). Nominal GDP in dollars is taken from the April 2014 WEO, because the OECD does notreport this variable.
5Actual vs. Potential Output
In most countries, the deviations of potential output from its pre-crisis path are smaller thanthe deviations of actual output from the same path, but only by modest amounts. We can see thisin Figure 2: for most countries, the line for y* is not far above the line for y. Figure 5 makes thispoint by plotting each country’s percentage deviation of Y* from Y** against its deviation of Y
from Y**, both in 2015. In this graph, many countries are close to the 45 degree line.
According to these results, hysteresis has been remarkably strong during the Great Recession.
In many countries, as the recession has pushed actual output below its pre-crisis trend, the effect on
potential output has been almost one-for-one.
Averaging across the 23 countries, actual output, Y, is 9.74% below Y** in 2013. Thisdeviation from the pre-crisis trend is the sum of a 7.18% loss of potential output and a 2.56% gap
between the current levels of potential and actual output (both measured as percentages of Y**). In
2015, the deviation of Y from Y** is 9.87%, split into a 8.38% loss of potential and a 1.49% gap
between potential and actual output.
Prospects for the Future
In some countries, potential output has fallen significantly below its pre-crisis path, but thecurrent growth rate of potential is not far from its old normal. In the United States, for example, theMay 2014 OECD Outlook predicts that potential output will grow at an average rate of 2.23% over
2014-2015; this growth rate is only modestly lower than the 2.57% average reported for 2001-2009
in the December 2007 Outlook. This similarity means that the current paths of y* and y** areroughly parallel, with a stable gap between the two variables.
In other countries, however, the current growth rates of potential output are much lower than6

past rates. In Ireland, the May 2014 Outlook predicts that potential will grow at an average rate of
only 0.9% over 2014-2015, compared to a 5.8% growth rate in the pre-crisis data for 2001-2009. In
Greece, the predicted growth rate is -0.2% for 2014-2015, compared to 4.0% in the pre-crisis data.
In these countries, if potential growth rates remain at current depressed levels, then the losses ofpotential output relative to pre-crisis trends will grow rapidly over time.
As these examples suggest, the countries with the largest current losses of potential output also
have bad prospects going forward. To make this point, Figure 6 plots each country’s percentage lossof potential output in 2015 against its current growth depression: the growth rate of potential over
2001-2009 in the December 2007 data minus the growth rate over 2014-2015 in the May 2014 data.
The correlation in Figure 6 implies that--absent sharp accelerations in potential growth--thecountries damaged most by the Great Recession will do worse and worse over time relative to othercountries as well as to their own pre-crisis trajectories.
Averaged across countries, the pre-crisis growth rate of potential over 2001-2009 is 2.4%, andthe predicted growth rate over 2014-15 is 1.7%. The difference between these two rates, 0.7%, isthe average growth depression. If potential output continues to grow at the rates predicted for 20142015, the level of potential in the average country will fall below its pre-crisis path by an additional
0.7 percentage points per year.

IV. DISCUSSION
The global financial crisis of 2008-2009 triggered national recessions of varying severity. The
hardest-hit economies include those in the periphery of the euro area, which experienced severebanking and debt crises. At the other extreme, Australia was almost unscathed because of factors

7including fiscal stimulus and strong exports to Asia (OECD, 2010).
This paper finds that the recent recessions have had dire effects on economies’ productive
capacity, as measured by OECD and IMF estimates of potential output. In most countries, the fallin potential relative to its pre-crisis trend has been almost as large as the fall in actual output.
Consequently, the countries with the deepest recessions have also experienced the greatest long-term
damage.
If we aggregate the 23 countries in my sample, the loss of potential output relative to its precrisis path is 8.4% in 2015. To appreciate the size of this loss, note that Germany accounts for 8.2%of the aggregate economy. The total damage from the Great Recession is slightly larger than the loss
if Germany’s entire economy disappeared.
Through what mechanisms do recessions reduce potential output? This question is addressedfor past financial crises by IMF (2009) and for the recent U.S. experience by Reifschneider et al,Hall (2014), and Yang (2014). While the results vary, it appears that recessions sharply reduce
capital accumulation; have long-term effects on employment (largely through lower labor force
participation); and may slow the growth of total factor productivity. This last effect is poorly
understood; one possible factor is a decrease in the formation of businesses with new technologies(Reifschneider et al.; Fort et al., 2013). A better understanding of hysteresis mechanisms is a highpriority for research.
Another pressing question is whether hysteresis effects are reversible. Some researchers
suggest that these effects are asymmetric; for example, Reifschneider et al. assume that a recession
causes a persistent fall in labor force participation and rise in unemployment, but strong output
growth does not have the opposite effects. If this view is correct, then macroeconomic policymakers

8cannot repair the long-term damage from the Great Recession.
On the other hand, if policymakers can somehow create a strong economic expansion,
hysteresis might work in reverse. Procyclical investment could increase the capital stock; plentiful
job opportunities could increase workers’ attachment to the labor force; and so on. Perhaps a strong
expansion could push potential output back toward its pre-crisis path. Failing that, the expansion
might at least reverse declines in the growth rate of potential, so the damage from the GreatRecession does not continue to grow.

9REFERENCES
Ball, Laurence, Brad DeLong, and Larry Summers, “Fiscal Policy and Full Employment,” Full
Employment Project, Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, April 2014.
Beffy, Pierre-Olivier, et al., “New OECD Methods for Supply-Side and Medium-Term Assessments:
A Capital Services Approach,” OECD Economic Department Working Paper #482, July 2006.
Blanchard, Olivier J., and Lawrence H. Summers, “Hysteresis and the European Unemployment
Problem,” NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 1986.
Cerra, Valerie, and Sweta Chaman Saxena, “Growth Dynamics: The Myth of Economic Recovery,”
American Economic Review, March 2008.
Congressional Budget Office, “Revisions to CBO’s Projection of Potential Output Since 2007,”
February 2014.
Fernald, John, “Productivity and Potential Output before, during, and after the Great Recession,”
Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Working Paper #2012-18, September 2012.
Fort, Teresa C., et al., “How Firms Respond to Business Cycles: The Role of Firm Age and FirmSize,” NBER Working Paper #19134, June 2013.
Hall, Robert E., “Quantifying the Lasting Harm to the U.S. Economy from the Financial Crisis,”
NBER Macroeconomics Annual, 2014.
Haltmaier, Jane, “Do Recessions Affect Potential Output?,” International Finance Discussion Paper#1066, Federal Reserve Board, December 2012.
International Monetary Fund, “What’s the Damage? Medium-Term Output Dynamics After
Financial Crises,” World Economic Outlook, October 2009.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Economic Survey of Australia, 2010.
Reifschneider, Dave, William L. Wascher, and David Wilcox, “Aggregate Supply in the UnitedStates: Recent Developments and Implications for the Conduct of Monetary Policy,” 14th Jacques
Polak Annual Research Conference, November 2013.
Reinhart, Carmen M., and Kenneth S. Rogoff, “The Aftermath of Financial Crises,” American
Economic Review, May 2009.
Reinhart, Carmen M., and Kenneth S. Rogoff, “Recovery from Financial Crises: Evidence from 100
Episodes,” American Economic Review, May 2014.

10

Summers, Lawrence H., Speech at Center for Budget and Policy Priorities Event on Full
Employment, April 2, 2014.
Yang, David, unpublished analysis at Harvard University, 2014.

11

0

.5

Figure 1 - United States-.5yy**, 1995-2009
1995

2000

y** is normalized to zero in 2000
Sources:y and y*: OECD Economic Outlook May 2014
y**, 1995-2009: OECD Economic Outlook December 2007
y**, 2010-2015: extrapolated from y**, 2000-2009

2005

y*
y**, 2010-2015
2010

2015

Figure 2 - OECD Countries
Austria

-.5

-.5

0

0

.5

.5

Australia

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

1995

2005

2010

2015

2005

2010

2015

0
-.5

-.5

0

.5

Canada.5

Belgium

2000

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

1995

2000

Denmark

-.5

-.5

0

0

.5

.5

Czech Republic

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

1995

2005

2010

2015

2000

2005

2010

2015

0
-.5

-.5

0

.5

France.5Finland

2000

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

1995

Greece

-.5

-.5

0

0

.5

.5

Germany

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

1995

2005

2010

2015

2000

2005

2010

2015

Ireland

-.5

-.5

0

0

.5

.5

Hungary

2000

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

1995

Japan

-.5

-.5

0

0

.5

.5

Italy

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

1995

2005

2010

2015

2005

2010

2015

0
-.5

-.5

0

.5

New Zealand.5

Netherlands

2000

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

1995

2000

Portugal

-.5

-.5

0

0

.5

.5

Poland

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

1995

2005

2010

2015

2005

2010

2015

Sweden

-.5

-.5

0

0

.5

.5

Spain

2000

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

1995

2000

United Kingdom

-.5

-.5

0

0

.5

.5

Switzerland

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2005

2010

2015

-.5

0

.5

United States

1995

2000

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

Figure 3 - Loss of Potential Output, 2015
Australia
Austria
Belgium
CanadaCzech Republic
Denmark
FinlandFranceGermany
GreeceHungary
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Netherlands
New Zealand
PolandPortugal
Spain
SwedenSwitzerland
United Kingdom
United States
0

10

20
percent

30

40

40

Figure 4 - Loss of Potential, 2015, from IMF and OECD

Loss from IMF, %20
30

IrelandSpain
Finland
Portugal
Italy
United Kingdom

10FranceBelgium
SwedenNetherlands
CanadaJapan
Austria
United States
New ZealandAustralia

0Germany01020
Loss from OECD, %30

40

Figure 5 - Actual vs Potential Output, 20150

Loss of Actual Output, 2015(%)
2040

GreeceIreland

Hungary
Czech Republic
Spain
Finland
Portugal
Italy
Denmark
United Kingdom
Netherlands
FranceBelgium
Austria
CanadaSwedenJapan
PolandUnitedStatesNew
Zealand
Australia
Germany
Switzerland

0

20
Loss of Potential Output, 2015(%)

Loss of actual output = (Loss of potential output) + (Gap between potential and actual output)

40

6

Ireland

4

GreeceHungary
Czech Republic
Spain

2

Finland
ItalyPortugal
PolandNetherlands
Denmark
CanadaUnited Kingdom
Belgium
AustriaJapan
SwedenFranceNew
ZealandUnitedStatesGermany
Australia0

Growth Depression, 2014-2015 (percentage pts)

Figure 6 - Lost Potential vs Current Growth Depression

Switzerland

0

10
20
30
Loss of Potential Output, 2015(%)

40

Growth Depression = (Average growth rate of potential over 2001-2009, from Dec 2007 data) - (Average growth rate of potential
over 2014-2015, from May 2014 data)

Table 1 – Losses in OECD Countries
Country

Australia
Austria
Belgium
CanadaCzech Republic
Denmark
FinlandFranceGermany
GreeceHungary
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Netherlands
New Zealand
PolandPortugal
Spain
SwedenSwitzerland
United Kingdom
United States
Weighted
Average

Loss in Potential,
2013
1.40%
6.02%
7.54%
8.24%
18.24%
9.73%
15.66%
7.50%
2.87%
29.98%
25.69%
27.70%
9.88%
8.47%
6.83%
6.50%
5.24%
11.41%
18.21%
7.58%-0.42%
10.98%
4.70%
7.18%

Output Gap, 2013

1.60%
2.75%
1.73%
0.75%
3.58%
2.93%
2.63%
2.68%
0.56%
9.33%
1.93%
6.32%
5.04%
-0.15%
4.01%
0.29%
0.66%
6.42%
4.37%
1.75%
0.76%
2.14%
3.35%
2.56%

Loss in Potential,
2015
1.83%
7.14%
8.82%
9.71%
22.40%
11.32%
18.99%
8.58%
3.39%
35.40%
30.51%
34.15%
12.05%
9.57%
8.53%
7.47%
7.42%
13.74%
22.33%
8.66%-0.88%
12.37%
5.33%
8.38%

Loss in Potential = (Y**-Y*)/Y**
Output Gap =(Y*-Y)/Y**
Growth Rate of Potential, Pre-Crisis: Average for 2001-2009 (December 2007 data)
Growth Rate of Potential, 2014-2015: Average for 2014-2015 (May 2014 data)
Weighted Average: Weights proportional to Y** in 2015

Output Gap, 2015

2.27%
2.64%
1.19%
-0.16%
3.52%
1.63%
3.08%
3.08%
-0.87%
7.59%
0.69%
4.45%
3.74%
-0.89%
4.09%-1.22%
0.16%
4.98%
3.52%
0.76%
0.39%
0.32%
1.87%
1.49%

Growth Rate of
Growth Rate ofPotential, PrePotential, 2014Crisis
2015
3.33%
3.11%
2.36%
1.75%
2.07%
1.36%
2.90%
2.08%
4.62%
1.92%
1.76%
0.86%
3.09%
1.04%
2.08%
1.48%
1.52%
1.25%
3.96%
-0.15%
4.42%
0.98%
5.75%
0.93%
1.34%
0.11%
1.40%
0.79%
2.14%
1.20%
3.07%
2.53%
4.11%
2.91%
1.83%
0.49%
3.47%
0.83%
3.02%
2.41%
1.81%
2.04%
2.66%
1.85%
2.57%
2.23%
2.39%
1.68%