VoxEU: a tale of three depressions
The Covid-19 pandemic caused a catastrophic collapse in the world economy. This column analyses the path of this decline and compares it to two other major global crises: the Great Depression in the 1930s and the Great Recession following the banking crisis of 2007-2008, writes Paul De Grauwe and Yuemei Ji for VoxEU here.
Different shocks with different policy responses
During the Great Depression, both the monetary and fiscal authorities conducted restrictive policies (Friedman and Schwartz 1963, Eichengreen and O’Rourke 2010).
These ill-conceived policies had the effect of intensifying and prolonging the downturn in production and transforming this into a Great Depression. By 2008 policymakers had learned their lessons from history and reacted by monetary and fiscal stimuli. As a result, the economic downturn that initially had all the ingredients of becoming a Great Depression was cut short. How different is the economic shock produced by the Covid-19 pandemic that shook the world at the start of 2020?
It was very different compared to the shock caused by the financial crisis of 2007-2008 and the Great Depression in the 1930s.
A key chart from the article:
The contrast between the aftermath of the Covid-19 shock and those of the two banking crises is strong, in two ways.
First, the intensity of the downward movement after the eruption of the coronavirus pandemic is much greater and faster than that of the Great Depression and of the banking crisis of 2008. The reason is that the pandemic produced both a supply and a demand shock. The supply shock arose from interruptions of supply chains that forced many companies to halt production (Inoue and Todo 2019). This supply shock, in turn, produced major demand shocks: consumers could not get to the shops, workers saw their revenues decline, and animal spirits set in that induced consumers and firms to postpone consumption and investment (Baldwin and Weder di Mauro 2020).
These supply and demand shocks interacted and amplified each other, leading to a swift deflationary spiral that was much faster than the downward spirals after the banking crises of 1929 and 2008. The latter triggered negative demand shocks but did not lead to supply disruptions.
A second difference has to do with the revival observed after the coronavirus shock. We see that once the lockdowns were eased, industrial production rebounded strongly. This revival was made possible by the fact that most governments responded in the right way. They made sure that companies were given financial support and that workers who were at risk of losing their jobs were not dismissed. In Europe, governments simply took over (part of) their wages. This ensured that those employees retained their purchasing power and could therefore continue to buy goods and services and that firms were not driven into bankruptcy. In the US, government spending – including unemployment benefits – expanded massively.
Governments supported their economies so that these were kept alive, making it possible to rebound relatively easily when the lockdowns were lifted.
The full and original article first appeared on VoxEU here on 24th Sep 2020.
Download
Download opinion5 October 2020
New Horizons Hub: A tipping point on climate change This bundle contains {bundle_entries}{/bundle_entries} articles"THINK Outside" is a collection of specially commissioned content from third-party sources, such as economic think-tanks and academic institutions, that ING deems reliable and from non-research departments within ING. ING Bank N.V. ("ING") uses these sources to expand the range of opinions you can find on the THINK website. Some of these sources are not the property of or managed by ING, and therefore ING cannot always guarantee the correctness, completeness, actuality and quality of such sources, nor the availability at any given time of the data and information provided, and ING cannot accept any liability in this respect, insofar as this is permissible pursuant to the applicable laws and regulations.
This publication does not necessarily reflect the ING house view. This publication has been prepared solely for information purposes without regard to any particular user's investment objectives, financial situation, or means. The information in the publication is not an investment recommendation and it is not investment, legal or tax advice or an offer or solicitation to purchase or sell any financial instrument. Reasonable care has been taken to ensure that this publication is not untrue or misleading when published, but ING does not represent that it is accurate or complete. ING does not accept any liability for any direct, indirect or consequential loss arising from any use of this publication. Unless otherwise stated, any views, forecasts, or estimates are solely those of the author(s), as of the date of the publication and are subject to change without notice.
The distribution of this publication may be restricted by law or regulation in different jurisdictions and persons into whose possession this publication comes should inform themselves about, and observe, such restrictions.
Copyright and database rights protection exists in this report and it may not be reproduced, distributed or published by any person for any purpose without the prior express consent of ING. All rights are reserved.
ING Bank N.V. is authorised by the Dutch Central Bank and supervised by the European Central Bank (ECB), the Dutch Central Bank (DNB) and the Dutch Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM). ING Bank N.V. is incorporated in the Netherlands (Trade Register no. 33031431 Amsterdam).