Hubbry Logo
Great ModerationGreat ModerationMain
Open search
Great Moderation
Community hub
Great Moderation
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Great Moderation
Great Moderation
Great Moderation
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
US annualized real GDP growth from 1950 to 2016

The Great Moderation is a period of macroeconomic stability in the United States coinciding with the rise of central bank independence beginning with the Volcker shock in 1980 and continuing to the present day.[1][2] It is characterized by generally milder business cycle fluctuations in developed nations, compared with decades before. Throughout this period, major economic variables such as real GDP growth, industrial production, unemployment, and price levels have become less volatile, while average inflation has fallen and recessions have become less common.[3]

The Great Moderation is typically attributed to the adoption of standards for macroeconomic targeting such as the Taylor rule and inflation targeting.[3][4] However, some economists argue technological shifts also played a role.[5]

The term was coined in 2002 by James H. Stock and Mark Watson to describe the observed reduction in business cycle volatility.[6] There is some debate as to whether the Great Moderation ended with the 2008 financial crisis and the Great Recession, or if it continued beyond this date, with the crisis being an anomaly.[7]

Origins of the term

[edit]

The term "Great Moderation" was coined by James Stock and Mark Watson in their 2002 paper, "Has the Business Cycle Changed and Why?"[8] It was brought to the attention of the wider public by Ben Bernanke (then member and later chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve) in a speech at the 2004 meetings of the Eastern Economic Association.[3][9]

Causes

[edit]

Central bank independence

[edit]

Since the Treasury–Fed Accord of 1951, the US Federal Reserve was freed from government and gave way to the development of modern monetary policy. According to John B. Taylor, this allowed the Federal Reserve to abandon discretionary macroeconomic policy by the US Federal government to set new goals that would better benefit the economy.[10]

Taylor Rule

[edit]

The Taylor rule results in less policy instability, which should reduce macroeconomic volatility.[2] The rule prescribed setting the bank rate based on three main indicators: the federal funds rate, the price level and the changes in real income.[11] The Taylor rule also prescribes economic activity regulation by choosing the federal funds rate based on the inflation gap between desired (targeted) inflation rate and actual inflation rate; and the output gap between the actual and natural level.

In an American Economic Review paper, Troy Davig and Eric Leeper stated that the Taylor principle is countercyclical in nature and a "very simple rule [that] does a good job of describing Federal Reserve interest-rate decisions". They argued that it is designed for "keeping the economy on an even keel", and that following the Taylor principle can produce business cycle stabilization and crisis stabilization.[12]

However, since the 2000s the actual interest rate in advanced economies, especially in the US, was below that suggested by the Taylor rule.[13]

Structural economic changes

[edit]

A change in economic structure shifted away from manufacturing, an industry considered less predictable and more volatile. The Sources of the Great Moderation by Bruno Coric supports the claim of drastic labor market changes, noting a high "increase in temporary workers, part time workers and overtime hours".[5] In addition to a change in the labor market, there were behavioral changes in how corporations managed their inventories. With improved sales forecasting and inventory management, inventory costs became much less volatile, increasing corporation stability.[citation needed]

Technology

[edit]

Advances in information technology and communications increased corporation efficiency. The improvement in technology changed the entire way corporations managed their resources as information became much more readily available to them with inventions such as the barcode.[14]

Information technology introduced the adoption of the "just-in-time" inventory practices. Demand and inventory became easier to track with advancements in technology, corporations were able to reduce stocks of inventory and their carrying costs more immediately, both of which resulted in much less output volatility.[5]

Luck

[edit]

Researchers at the US Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank have rejected the "good luck" explanation, and attribute it mainly to monetary policies.[3][15][16] There were many large economic crises — such as the Latin American debt crisis, the failure of Continental Illinois in 1984, Black Monday (1987), the 1997 Asian financial crisis, the collapse of Long-Term Capital Management in 1998, and the dot-com bubble in 2000 — that did not greatly destabilize the US economy during the Great Moderation.[17]

Stock and Watson used a four variable vector autoregression model to analyze output volatility and concluded that stability increased due to economic good luck. Stock and Watson believed that it was pure luck that the economy didn't react violently to the economic shocks during the Great Moderation. While there were numerous economic shocks, there is very little evidence that these shocks are as large as prior economic shocks.[5]

Effects

[edit]

Research has indicated that the US monetary policy that contributed to the drop in the volatility of US output fluctuations also contributed to the decoupling of the business cycle from household investments characterized the Great Moderation.[4] The latter became the toxic assets that caused the Great Recession.[18][19]

According to Hyman Minsky the great moderation enabled a classic period of financial instability, with stable growth encouraging greater financial risk taking.[20]

End

[edit]

It is now commonly assumed that the 2008 financial crisis and the Great Recession brought the Great Moderation period to an end, as was initially argued by some economists such as John Quiggin.[21] Richard Clarida at PIMCO considered the Great Moderation period to have been roughly between 1987 and 2007, and characterized it as having "predictable policy, low inflation, and modest business cycles".[22]

However, before the COVID-19 pandemic, the US real GDP growth rate, the real retail sales growth rate, and the inflation rate had all returned to roughly what they were before the Great Recession. Todd Clark has presented an empirical analysis which claims that volatility, in general, has returned to the same level as before the Great Recession. He concluded that while severe, the 2007 recession will in future be viewed as a temporary period with a high level of volatility in a longer period where low volatility is the norm, and not as a definitive end to the Great Moderation.[23][24]

However, the decade following Great Recession had some key differences with the economy of the Great Moderation. The economy had a much larger debt overhead. This led to a much slower economic recovery, the slowest since the Great Depression.[25] Despite the low volatility of the economy, few would argue that the 2009-2020 economic expansion, which was the longest on record,[26] was carried out under Goldilocks economic conditions. Andrea Riquier dubs the post-Great Recession period as the "Great Stability".[27]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Great Moderation

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Great Moderation was a sustained episode of diminished macroeconomic volatility in the United States and several other advanced economies, spanning roughly from 1984 to the onset of the .
This era featured markedly steadier real GDP growth, with the standard deviation of quarterly changes falling by approximately half relative to the postwar decades before the , alongside a two-thirds reduction in inflation volatility.
It encompassed the longest economic expansion in the U.S. since , with fewer and milder recessions, low and stable inflation rates, and robust productivity gains that supported noninflationary growth.
Explanations for the phenomenon remain contested among economists, with empirical evidence supporting roles for enhanced —such as systematic and adherence to rules approximating the —alongside structural shifts like improved supply-chain efficiencies and "just-in-time" inventory practices that curtailed output swings, and possibly benign external conditions involving fewer severe shocks like oil price spikes.
The moderation concluded with the subprime mortgage meltdown and ensuing credit freeze, exposing how apparent aggregate stability had coincided with rising financial leverage and asset price imbalances that amplified the subsequent downturn.

Definition and Historical Period

Key Characteristics of Reduced Volatility

The Great Moderation was characterized by a substantial decline in the volatility of key , particularly evident in the United States from the mid-1980s until the onset of the 2007-2009 . The standard deviation of quarterly real GDP growth fell from approximately 2.6 percent in the pre-1984 period to 1.7 percent afterward, representing a roughly 35 percent reduction. This halving of output volatility, as noted in contemporaneous analyses, contributed to fewer and milder recessions, with only two relatively shallow downturns occurring after 1984 compared to more frequent and severe episodes in the preceding decades. Inflation volatility exhibited an even more pronounced stabilization, with the standard deviation of quarterly measures dropping from around 3.0 percent pre-1984 to 1.2 percent post-1984, a decline of about 60 percent. This reduction, described as a two-thirds decrease in variability, facilitated more predictable and diminished the resources allocated to inflation hedging. Similarly, rate fluctuations moderated, with the standard deviation decreasing from 1.6 percent to 0.8 percent over the same breakpoint. These patterns extended beyond aggregate measures, as evidenced by diminished covariances across states and industries in GDP components, underscoring a broad-based dampening of fluctuations rather than isolated sectoral improvements. Overall, the era featured steadier real GDP growth and personal consumption expenditure compared to prior volatility, marking the longest peacetime expansion in U.S. history up to that point. This reduced macroeconomic uncertainty supported sustained economic expansions with low and stable , though the precise mechanisms linking these micro- and macro-level stabilizations remain subject to ongoing econometric scrutiny.

Timeline and Empirical Metrics

The Great Moderation refers to the period of diminished macroeconomic volatility in the United States from approximately 1984 to the second quarter of 2007, marking a shift from the higher fluctuations observed during the preceding decades of the Great Inflation. This timeline aligns with the stabilization following the aggressive monetary tightening under Chairman in the early 1980s, culminating in the lead-up to the and the beginning in December 2007. Empirical evidence underscores the reduction in output volatility, with the standard deviation of quarterly real GDP growth declining by roughly half compared to pre-1984 levels. Specifically, studies document the quarterly GDP growth standard deviation falling from about 1.1% in the pre-1984 period to around 0.5% afterward. volatility exhibited an even more pronounced , with the standard deviation of quarterly CPI decreasing by approximately two-thirds over the same transition. These metrics reflect not only aggregate GDP but also components such as durable goods output, where growth volatility dropped from 17.8% pre-1983 to 7.7% post-1983, while sales volatility moderated less dramatically from 10.3% to 8.4%. Unemployment rate fluctuations similarly diminished, contributing to overall , though the period's end revealed vulnerabilities in financial leverage and asset prices not captured in standard volatility measures.

Pre-Moderation Economic Context

Volatility During the Great Inflation

The Great Inflation, spanning from the mid-1960s to the early 1980s, was characterized by elevated macroeconomic volatility in the United States, manifesting in sharp fluctuations in both output and prices. Inflation accelerated from approximately 1% in 1964 to a peak of 14.5% by summer 1980, driven initially by fiscal expansion and loose , and exacerbated by external shocks such as the 1973 Arab oil embargo and the 1979 . This period saw inflation volatility intensify, with the standard deviation of four-quarter changes in the remaining high amid repeated accelerations and policy missteps that accommodated rising price pressures. Output volatility was similarly pronounced, with the standard deviation of four-quarter real GDP growth averaging around 2.0% in the , rising to 2.7% in the , and sustaining at 2.6% through the early . The endured four recessions between 1965 and 1982, including the severe 1973-1975 downturn triggered by oil shocks and the 1981-1982 contraction, during which peaked near 11%. These episodes reflected dynamics, where high inflation coexisted with sluggish growth and elevated —such as over 7% joblessness amid 12% inflation in 1974—underscoring the instability from supply disruptions and inconsistent . Monetary policy during this era contributed to sustained volatility by prioritizing output stabilization over , often underestimating inflationary persistence and overestimating potential GDP in real time. actions, including rapid growth in response to shocks, amplified swings rather than damping them, as evidenced by the persistence of high-frequency output deviations. Empirical analyses confirm that pre-1980s output volatility, measured at approximately 2.7% standard deviation for real GDP growth, far exceeded levels observed after the mid-1980s stabilization.

Policy Shifts in the Early 1980s

In October 1979, Chairman announced a shift in operating procedures, moving from targeting interest rates to controlling nonborrowed reserves in order to restrain growth and combat persistent , which had reached 13.5% by year-end. This change allowed the to rise sharply, peaking at nearly 20% in June 1981, inducing a severe from July 1981 to November 1982 with climbing to 10.8%. Despite the short-term economic pain, the policy succeeded in reducing to 3.2% by 1983, establishing central bank credibility in prioritizing over output stabilization and marking a departure from the discretionary approaches of the that had accommodated inflationary pressures. Under President , elected in November 1980, emphasized supply-side reforms, including the Economic Recovery Tax Act of August 1981, which reduced the top marginal rate from 70% to 50% and corporate rates from 46% to 34%, while accelerating depreciation allowances to incentivize investment. Complementary efforts accelerated, building on prior and trucking reforms by easing restrictions in , , and telecommunications; for instance, the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 expanded thrift institutions' lending powers and removed ceilings, aiming to enhance market and efficiency. These measures sought to diminish government intervention, fostering structural adjustments that economists attribute to reduced policy-induced volatility by aligning incentives with productive activity rather than . The combined monetary restraint and fiscal liberalization in the early disrupted entrenched inflationary expectations, with real GDP volatility declining markedly post-1982 as the economy transitioned from the high-inflation regime of the , where standard deviation of quarterly GDP growth averaged 3.3% from 1960-1982, to a more stable path thereafter. Empirical analyses, such as those examining stabilization efforts, support the view that these policy pivots—particularly Volcker's commitment to non-accommodative rules—played a causal role in anchoring long-term interest rates and mitigating boom-bust cycles driven by prior fiscal-monetary mismatches. However, the recessionary costs underscored the trade-offs, as output fell 2.7% in 1982, highlighting that stability gains required short-term sacrifices not fully anticipated in Keynesian frameworks dominant beforehand.

Primary Causes

Enhancements in Monetary Policy

One key enhancement in U.S. during the Great Moderation was the aggressive disinflationary measures implemented by Chairman from 1979 to 1987, which broke the back of entrenched high expectations following the Great Inflation period. Volcker raised the to nearly 20% in 1981, enduring a sharp but successfully reducing from over 12% in the mid-1970s to around 4% by 1983, thereby establishing a foundation of that lowered overall macroeconomic volatility starting in the mid-1980s. Under , who served as Fed Chairman from 1987 to 2006, shifted toward more systematic, rule-like responses that approximated the , prescribing adjustments exceeding one-for-one with deviations in from target and output from potential. This approach helped anchor expectations at low levels, avoiding the erratic "go-stop" cycles of prior decades, and was complemented by improved communication, such as the Federal Open Market Committee's first public announcement of policy decisions on February 4, 1994, and forward guidance phrases like "for a considerable period" introduced on August 12, 2003. Empirical analyses attribute much of the reduced volatility in —and to a lesser extent output—to these policy improvements, including stronger adherence to the Taylor principle (where interest rates rise more than to stabilize expectations) post-1979. Governor argued in that such enhancements in policy frameworks, implementation, and economic understanding likely moved the economy toward a more efficient stabilization frontier, contributing importantly alongside other factors like smaller shocks. Research supports this by showing that better monetary responses explained the bulk of moderation, with systematic policy minimizing amplification of supply shocks such as oil price fluctuations.

Structural Market-Driven Changes

Improvements in inventory management practices, facilitated by advances in and communication technologies, played a key role in dampening economic volatility during the Great Moderation. Firms adopted just-in-time inventory systems, which minimized stockpiling and reduced the amplification of demand shocks through inventory cycles. This shift contributed to a decline in the variability of durable goods inventories, accounting for a notable portion of the overall reduction in GDP volatility from the onward. Empirical analysis indicates that enhanced inventory control practices explained up to 20-25% of the moderation in aggregate fluctuations, as they curtailed the "" where small upstream demand variations escalate downstream. Deregulation across key industries further promoted structural efficiency by fostering competition and price flexibility. Legislative actions, such as the and the , dismantled and entry barriers in transportation sectors, leading to lower costs and more responsive supply adjustments. These reforms extended to and in the 1980s and 1990s, enabling markets to allocate resources more dynamically and absorb shocks without propagating them into broader output swings. Consequently, the economy exhibited greater resilience to sector-specific disturbances, as evidenced by stabilized relative prices and reduced cyclical amplitudes in affected industries. The transition toward a service-oriented also underpinned market-driven stability, with the share of in U.S. GDP dropping from approximately 20% in to under 12% by 2007. Services, being less inventory-intensive and more demand-elastic, inherently generate lower volatility compared to goods production, which is prone to disruptions. This sectoral reallocation, driven by technological gains and consumer preferences, diversified the economic base and mitigated the impact of traditional industrial cycles. Overall, these endogenous structural adaptations—distinct from policy interventions—enhanced the 's capacity to self-stabilize against perturbations.

Favorable External Shocks

One prominent explanation for the Great Moderation attributes a significant portion of the reduced macroeconomic volatility to "," manifested as smaller and less frequent exogenous shocks impinging on the U.S. economy from the mid-1980s onward. Economists James H. Stock and Mark W. Watson analyzed postwar U.S. data and estimated that declines in the variance of shocks—particularly and disturbances—accounted for roughly half of the drop in quarterly GDP growth volatility between the pre-1984 and post-1984 periods. This perspective posits that the economy benefited from an unusually benign external environment, with fewer large adverse disturbances compared to the volatility-inducing episodes of the , such as double-digit spikes and recessions triggered by supply disruptions. A key category of these favorable shocks involved oil prices, which exhibited markedly lower volatility after the energy crises of the 1970s. Real oil prices, which had surged over 300% during the 1973-1974 embargo and again in 1979 due to the , collapsed following the 1986 Saudi production increase, stabilizing at levels around $20-30 per barrel (in 2000 dollars) through much of the with minimal geopolitical interruptions. This stability reduced the propagation of supply-side impulses to output and ; empirical decompositions indicate that smaller oil shocks explained approximately 7% of the moderation in GDP growth volatility and 11% in volatility during the period. Concurrently, the declining share of oil in aggregate production—from about 5% of nominal GDP in the early to under 3% by the —amplified this effect, muting the economy's sensitivity to price fluctuations and contributing up to one-third of the moderation. Beyond oil, the absence of major commodity or terms-of-trade shocks further supported stability, as global supply chains faced fewer disruptions than in prior decades marked by trade wars or raw material shortages. The end of the in 1991 also diminished the risk of large-scale geopolitical shocks that could have echoed the 1970s-era instability, though quantitative attributions to this factor remain debated relative to domestic drivers. Overall, while proponents of the good-luck hypothesis emphasize these external factors' role in lowering shock variance—evident in structural VAR models showing reduced impulse responses—critics contend that shock magnitudes did not decline sufficiently to explain the full moderation, suggesting complementary influences like policy improvements.

Critiques of Causation Narratives

Doubts on Monetary Policy Dominance

Economists have questioned the attribution of the Great Moderation primarily to improvements in monetary policy, arguing that empirical evidence points to limited causal influence from central bank actions. Structural vector autoregression (SVAR) models and other econometric analyses indicate that changes in U.S. monetary policy rules, such as those under Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan, account for only a small fraction—often less than 20%—of the observed decline in output volatility after 1984. Instead, these models attribute 70-90% of the moderation to reductions in the size and frequency of economic shocks, including productivity disturbances and demand fluctuations, rather than policy responses stabilizing the economy. A key doubt arises from the timing of the volatility decline, which statistical break tests place around the early —preceding the full effects of Volcker's disinflationary tightening (initiated in 1979) and Greenspan's tenure starting in 1987. Estimates of Taylor rules, which approximate behavior, reveal no discrete in policy conduct between pre- and post-1984 periods, undermining claims of a in monetary strategy as the dominant driver. Counterfactual simulations applying post-Moderation policy rules to earlier data yield only marginal reductions in simulated volatility, suggesting that policy enhancements alone could not replicate the observed stability. International evidence further challenges monetary policy dominance, as similar declines in macroeconomic volatility occurred across developed economies, including in and , during the same period despite divergent monetary frameworks and without adopting U.S.-style inflation-targeting or rule-based approaches. For instance, output growth standard deviations fell by comparable magnitudes in the Euro area and the , where policy shifts emphasized fiscal restraint or mechanisms rather than aggressive interest rate stabilization akin to the Federal Reserve's. This cross-country pattern implies that common global factors, such as smaller price shocks after the energy crises or improved inventory management, played a larger role than country-specific monetary innovations. Critics like Fernández-Villaverde et al. (2008) conclude from these findings that narratives emphasizing "better " overstate its contribution, as micro-level data on firm and sector volatility show in underlying disturbances that rules could not fully mitigate. While proponents such as highlighted 's role in anchoring inflation expectations, detractors note that such benefits were secondary to exogenous reductions in shock variance, with potentially amplifying stability only in conjunction with these favorable conditions. This perspective underscores causal realism: actions, while stabilizing, did not fundamentally alter the economy's shock propagation in a manner sufficient to explain the Moderation's scale.

Overemphasis on Luck Versus Endogenous Factors

Critics of the "" hypothesis for the Great Moderation argue that it attributes excessive to reduced variance in exogenous shocks, such as oil price fluctuations or disturbances, while undervaluing endogenous factors like institutional and policy adaptations that altered economic propagation mechanisms. For instance, analyses using univariate or small-scale (VAR) models have suggested that shock volatility fell markedly after the mid-1980s, implying as the primary driver. However, more sophisticated structural (DSGE) models reveal that changes in shock incidence alone cannot account for the observed decline in output and volatility, as pre- and post-Moderation shock variances remain comparable when properly identified. This perspective posits that overreliance on luck overlooks causal channels where endogenous responses—such as improved or —dampened shock transmission, evidenced by lower persistence in macroeconomic aggregates post-1984. Empirical decompositions further challenge the luck narrative by highlighting shifts in the composition of economic activity that are inherently endogenous. Research indicates that the declining share of durable goods in GDP, coupled with advances in inventory control technologies adopted in the 1980s and 1990s, systematically reduced amplification of demand shocks, contributing up to 40% of the moderation in output variance. Similarly, financial sector deepening—through securitization and risk diversification—served as an endogenous stabilizer, mitigating credit constraints during downturns without relying on fortuitous external conditions. These factors contrast with the luck view, which fails to explain why moderation coincided with measurable improvements in private sector forecasting accuracy and global trade integration, both of which buffered domestic fluctuations independently of shock frequency. Attributing primacy to luck also risks understating the role of deliberate policy frameworks, such as the implicit adoption of Taylor-rule-like rules by the Federal Reserve from 1982 onward, which enhanced countercyclical responses and reduced inflationary persistence. Proponents of endogenous explanations emphasize that the Great Moderation's cross-country variations—stronger in the U.S. than in despite similar global shocks—underscore domestic institutional evolution over mere chance. For example, U.S.-specific in markets post-1980s lowered dependency endogenously, stabilizing supply responses, whereas exogenous shock reductions would predict uniform global moderation. Critiques of overemphasizing warn that such views foster complacency, as they imply stability was non-replicable and vulnerable to shock resumption, ignoring replicable endogenous levers like enhanced credibility gained through consistent from 1990s onward. This debate highlights a causal realism wherein endogenous adaptations, verifiable through structural VAR functions showing muted post-shock dynamics, provide a more robust account than probabilistic good fortune.

Hidden Risks from Financial Innovations

Financial innovations during the Great Moderation, such as of assets, credit derivatives, and expanded use of over-the-counter instruments, were often credited with enhancing risk dispersion and contributing to by allowing better matching of risks to investors' preferences. However, critics argued that these developments masked underlying vulnerabilities by encouraging excessive leverage and underpricing of tail risks, as institutions sought higher returns in a low-volatility environment. , in his 2005 analysis, contended that while financial deepening increased economies' risk-bearing capacity, it simultaneously incentivized intermediaries—like managers and banks—to pursue skewed return distributions, loading up on rare but severe losses to meet benchmarks amid competitive pressures. This dynamic fostered systemic fragility, as dispersed risks reconcentrated in opaque corners of the financial system, evading traditional regulatory oversight. A key mechanism involved and incentive misalignment: innovations like credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations enabled risk transfer but often without full transparency, allowing originators to offload subprime exposures while retaining incentives for lax underwriting to boost short-term volumes. Hyman Minsky's financial instability hypothesis, applied retrospectively, posited that prolonged stability bred complacency, prompting a shift toward speculative and Ponzi financing schemes reliant on asset price appreciation rather than fundamentals, amplified by these tools. from the period shows rising household and non-financial debt-to-GDP ratios—from around 100% in the early to over 150% by 2007—fueled by easier credit access via innovations, which sustained consumption but heightened sensitivity to shocks. Such buildup concealed fragility, as measured volatility in output and prices declined while unobservable leverage in the shadow banking system expanded dramatically. These hidden risks materialized in the 2007-2008 , where interconnected exposures via complex propagated failures from subprime mortgages across global markets, underscoring how innovations had not eliminated but relocated and amplified systemic threats. Post-crisis analyses, including those questioning the "" of innovation-driven moderation, highlighted that apparent stability owed more to suppressed variance in observable metrics than reduction, with financial deepening correlating to increased procyclicality and crisis severity. Rajan's prescient warning—that growth in financial intermediation could precipitate political backlash and policy errors in response to inevitable busts—underscored the causal realism of endogenous risk creation over exogenous luck.

Effects on the Economy

Measurable Reductions in Fluctuations

The Great Moderation, spanning roughly from the mid-1980s to 2007, featured a marked decline in the volatility of U.S. output growth. The standard deviation of quarterly real GDP growth rates dropped from 1.10% in the pre-1984 period to 0.49% during the moderation era, representing a reduction of over 55%. Similarly, for annual real GDP growth, the standard deviation fell from 2.7% prior to the mid-1980s to 1.28% thereafter. These metrics indicate halved fluctuations in economic output compared to earlier decades, with recessions becoming shallower and less frequent. Inflation volatility exhibited even steeper declines during this period. The standard deviation of the quarterly rate decreased by approximately two-thirds, from levels around 3% pre-1984 to under 1.2% in the post-1984 sample. Overall, volatility fell by about 60%, contributing to more stable price levels and reduced uncertainty in monetary planning. This stabilization aligned with the Federal Reserve's shift toward under chairs like and , though debates persist on the exact causal drivers. Volatility reductions extended to and industrial production. The standard deviation of quarterly rates halved, mirroring output trends, while sectoral output fluctuations, such as in durable goods, declined from 17.8% to 7.7% post-1983. These empirical shifts underscore a broad-based moderation in dynamics, quantifiable through lower variance in macroeconomic aggregates.

Broader Impacts on Growth and Stability

The Great Moderation, spanning approximately 1984 to 2007, featured average annual real GDP growth of about 3 percent alongside a roughly 50 percent reduction in the volatility of quarterly GDP growth, from a standard deviation of around 2.5 percent in the prior era to 1.2 percent. This stability manifested in fewer and shallower recessions—only two mild downturns compared to four, including two severe ones, in the preceding 15 years—contributing to the longest postwar in the United States. Lower output volatility also translated to more consistent employment levels, mitigating abrupt shifts in labor markets that had previously amplified swings. Reduced macroeconomic uncertainty during this period encouraged greater household and firm , facilitating sustained in capital and as agents faced lower risks of disruptive shocks. Stable , with variability declining by two-thirds, enhanced market efficiency by simplifying price signals and , while diminishing the need for resources allocated to inflation hedging, thereby freeing capital for productive uses. Stabilized real interest rates and relative prices further supported optimal decisions on consumption, , and long-term projects, fostering a virtuous cycle where predictability bolstered trend growth without elevating overheating risks. The era's stability also amplified productivity gains through structural adaptations, such as widespread adoption of and just-in-time inventory systems, which minimized disruptions and operational inefficiencies that had previously exacerbated volatility. These developments, enabled by a predictable macroeconomic environment, allowed firms to allocate resources more effectively toward efficiency-enhancing technologies, contributing to output per worker growth that underpinned the period's resilient expansion amid external shocks like the 1987 stock market crash. Overall, the moderation's emphasis on stability yielded compounding benefits for long-run prosperity by reducing the welfare costs of fluctuations, though it did not fundamentally alter the economy's underlying growth potential.

Controversies and Debates

Sustainability and Complacency Risks

The prolonged period of reduced macroeconomic volatility during the Great Moderation fostered a sense of complacency among policymakers and , leading to underestimation of tail risks and excessive leverage buildup. Empirical analyses indicate that extended low-volatility episodes correlate with heightened risk-taking, as agents extrapolate recent stability into the future, compressing risk premiums and encouraging debt accumulation consistent with Minsky's financial instability hypothesis. For instance, the absence of major financial disruptions from the mid-1980s to 2007 diminished awareness of systemic vulnerabilities, such as those in housing finance and markets. This complacency manifested in regulatory forbearance and optimistic assessments of economic resilience, with central banks viewing the era's stability as structural rather than potentially transient. officials, including , publicly attributed the moderation to improved policy and structural factors in , which may have reinforced perceptions that severe downturns were improbable. However, such views overlooked endogenous feedback mechanisms where low volatility incentivized in opaque financial instruments, amplifying hidden fragilities without evident short-term costs. Sustainability concerns arose from the era's failure to account for non-linear risks, as the moderation's benefits masked accumulating imbalances like rising household debt-to-GDP ratios, which climbed from 65% in 1980 to over 100% by 2007. Critics argue this environment bred , with market actors assuming implicit bailouts or perpetual growth, ultimately rendering the period unsustainable as shocks exposed underlying leverage. Post-crisis evaluations highlight that while the Great Moderation reduced observable fluctuations, it did not eliminate latent procyclicality, underscoring the need for vigilance against stability-induced overconfidence in policy frameworks.

Linkages to the 2008 Financial Crisis

The stability associated with the Great Moderation fostered a sense of complacency among policymakers, financial institutions, and investors, leading to diminished vigilance toward emerging financial vulnerabilities. During this era, low macroeconomic volatility obscured the accumulation of systemic risks, including high leverage ratios in the banking sector and the proliferation of opaque derivatives like collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), which interconnected global markets in ways that amplified shocks. This underappreciation of tail risks was evident in regulatory frameworks that prioritized macro stability over microprudential oversight, allowing credit cycles to expand unchecked. Monetary policy during the mid-2000s, characterized by prolonged low interest rates—such as the maintained at 1% from June 2003 to June 2004—exacerbated asset price distortions, particularly inflating the U.S. through increased lending and . Proponents of the , including economist John Taylor, contend that actual policy rates deviated significantly below rule-prescribed levels by up to 3 percentage points starting in 2002, injecting excess that fueled unsustainable expansion rather than responding solely to the moderation's low-inflation environment. This accommodative stance, justified partly by the era's subdued volatility, contributed to a boom where household debt-to-GDP ratios rose from 67% in 1990 to 98% by 2007, setting the stage for widespread defaults when housing prices peaked in 2006 and began declining. Financial innovations and partial , occurring amid the Great Moderation's backdrop of perceived enduring calm, facilitated the securitization of subprime mortgages into trillions of dollars in structured products by 2007, dispersing risks but also sowing seeds of contagion. While some analyses attribute the crisis buildup to lax oversight of non-bank entities and shadow banking growth—evident in the repeal of portions of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999 and exemptions for derivatives under the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000—others, including critiques from , argue that core regulatory failures stemmed not from deregulation per se but from inconsistent enforcement and incentives amplified by stable macro conditions. The 2008 Lehman Brothers collapse on September 15, 2008, exposed these linkages, as frozen credit markets triggered a sharp resurgence in output volatility, effectively terminating the Great Moderation. Empirical studies post-crisis indicate that financial sector leverage, which had quietly escalated during the low-volatility period, accounted for a significant portion of the subsequent GDP contraction, estimated at 3-4% beyond baseline forecasts.

Termination and Aftermath

Triggers of the 2007-2008 Disruption

The bursting of the U.S. in 2006 marked the initial trigger for the disruption of the Great Moderation, as residential investment peaked and home prices began a sustained decline, with the Case-Shiller national home price index falling 26% from its July 2006 peak by early 2009. This downturn stemmed from an earlier expansion of mortgage credit to subprime borrowers—those with credit scores below 660—who previously would have been denied loans, leading to a surge in adjustable-rate mortgages that reset to higher rates starting in -2007. Delinquency rates on subprime mortgages originated in 2006 reached 28% by late 2008, far exceeding prior cycles, as rising interest rates and falling home values eroded borrower equity and triggered widespread defaults. Financial innovations amplified the crisis through , where subprime loans were bundled into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), distributing risk across global institutions but obscuring true exposures due to overly optimistic credit ratings. By mid-2007, early warning signs emerged with the collapse of two hedge funds in June, heavily invested in subprime-linked assets, followed by liquidity strains at funds in August, which froze lending markets as counterparties withdrew amid uncertainty over asset values. High leverage ratios—such as investment banks operating at 30:1 debt-to-equity—exacerbated losses, with institutions like facing insolvency by September 2008 after $600 billion in asset writedowns across the sector. Monetary policy contributed indirectly by maintaining low federal funds rates (averaging 1% from 2003-2004), which fueled credit expansion and housing speculation during the Great Moderation's later years, fostering complacency toward emerging risks in a low-volatility environment. Chairman later acknowledged that this prolonged accommodation, combined with regulatory gaps in oversight of vehicles, failed to curb excessive risk-taking, though he attributed primary causes to private-sector excesses rather than policy errors alone. The resulting credit contraction—evident in the spiking to 4.65% in October 2008—propagated shocks to the real economy, initiating the NBER-dated recession in December 2007 and ending the era of subdued output volatility.

Resurgence of Volatility Post-2008

The marked the abrupt termination of the Great Moderation, ushering in heightened macroeconomic volatility exemplified by the , during which U.S. real GDP contracted by 2.5% in 2008 and 2.6% in 2009—the most severe downturn since . Quarterly GDP growth exhibited extreme swings, including a -8.2% annualized decline in Q4 2008, surpassing prior postwar volatility benchmarks. Unemployment volatility intensified as the rate surged from 5.0% in December 2007 to 10.0% by October 2009, reflecting sharp cyclical disruptions absent during the low-volatility era. Post-recession recovery in the featured subdued but elevated fluctuations relative to 1984–2007 levels; the variance of real GDP growth since mid-2009 rose by approximately 25% after adjusting for transient factors like output incentives. Empirical analyses, such as those by and Watson, indicate a shift back to higher volatility commencing in 2007, with standard deviations of output growth approximating pre-Moderation norms in subsequent years. remained anchored near 2% targets but with intermittent spikes tied to prices and fiscal stimuli, contrasting the era's prior stability. The amplified this resurgence, inducing unprecedented shocks: real GDP plummeted 31.2% annualized in Q2 2020—the largest quarterly drop on record—followed by a 34.8% rebound in Q3, yielding extreme dispersion in growth rates. peaked at 14.8% in April 2020, with participation rates fluctuating wildly due to lockdowns and reopenings. Subsequent disinflationary pressures reversed into high volatility, as CPI climbed to 9.1% year-over-year in June 2022 amid supply disruptions and expansive policies, prompting rate hikes from near-zero to 5.25–5.50% by mid-2023. These episodes highlight vulnerability to large exogenous shocks, eroding the perceived permanence of moderation-era stability. By the mid-2020s, volatility persisted in fragmented forms, including regional banking stresses in 2023 (e.g., failure) and geopolitical influences on energy prices, though output growth stabilized around 2–3% annually without reverting to sustained low dispersion. Overall, post-2008 data reveal a structural increase in tail risks and shock propagation, challenging attributions of the Moderation solely to or gains and emphasizing endogenous financial fragilities and external vulnerabilities.

Legacy and Contemporary Analysis

Key Lessons for Policy Makers

The Great Moderation highlighted the efficacy of systematic rules, such as those approximating the , in reducing output and inflation volatility by anchoring expectations and responding predictably to deviations from targets. Central banks' shift from discretionary "go-stop" interventions in the to credible commitments to under leaders like and enabled this stability, as evidenced by the decline in U.S. GDP volatility from standard deviations of around 2.5% pre-1984 to under 1.5% afterward. Policymakers should prioritize such rules-based approaches over ad-hoc measures to mitigate policy errors that amplify shocks. However, the period's end in the 2007-2008 financial crisis revealed that macroeconomic stability can foster complacency, allowing financial imbalances like excessive leverage and credit expansion to build unchecked, as theorized in Hyman Minsky's financial instability hypothesis. alone proved insufficient, underscoring the need for complementary macroprudential tools, such as countercyclical capital buffers under , to constrain risk-taking during prolonged expansions. Regulators must monitor credit aggregates and asset prices alongside traditional indicators, avoiding overreliance on inflation targets that ignore tail risks. In the 2020s context, with resurgent volatility from factors like geopolitical fragmentation and shocks, lessons emphasize resilience through diversified instruments rather than assuming perpetual from "good luck" or past structural gains alone. Empirical debates persist on whether policy improvements or benign shocks drove the era—e.g., fewer oil price swings post-1980s—but causal evidence favors retaining disciplined frameworks while adapting to new systemic risks, such as disruptions that eluded earlier models. Policymakers should thus integrate fiscal stabilizers and enhanced international coordination to prevent moderation-induced vulnerabilities from recurring.

Evaluations in the 2020s Context

The and its aftermath in the early prompted economists to reevaluate the durability of the low-volatility regime associated with the Great Moderation, highlighting vulnerabilities to large-scale shocks and policy responses. U.S. real GDP contracted by 3.4% in 2020, with a peak quarterly annualized decline of 31.4% in Q2 2020, marking the most severe downturn since , driven by lockdowns and supply disruptions. This was followed by a sharp rebound in , with growth exceeding 5%, but accompanied by an inflation surge where the reached 9.1% year-over-year in June 2022, the highest since 1981, attributed to a combination of pent-up demand from fiscal stimulus, labor market tightness, and bottlenecks. Central banks, drawing on frameworks refined during the Moderation era, responded with aggressive rate hikes—the lifting its from near-zero in March 2020 to 5.25-5.50% by July 2023—facilitating without triggering a , often termed a "soft landing." This outcome has led some analysts to argue that core elements of the Great Moderation, such as credible rules and improved , remain effective against transitory shocks, as evidenced by returning to around 2-3% by mid-2024 amid sustained employment gains. However, critiques emphasize that the episode exposed limitations, including initial underestimation of persistence by policymakers, which prolonged the surge and eroded central bank credibility temporarily, with supply-side factors like energy prices and amplifying volatility beyond what demand-side tools could fully mitigate. By 2025, evaluations increasingly question whether a "new Great Moderation" is emerging, characterized by muted growth around 2% and subdued fluctuations, potentially due to structural and technological efficiencies offsetting geopolitical risks. Yet, persistent challenges such as fiscal dominance from high public debt, climate-related disruptions, and fragmented global trade suggest that the original period's stability may not fully recur without addressing these causal drivers, as curves appear steeper amid recent shocks compared to the 1980s-2000s. Economists like have contrasted "good " explanations—favoring adaptive —with "good luck" views, noting that the ' exogenous shocks test the former's resilience more rigorously than prior benign conditions. Overall, the decade underscores that while innovations from the Great Moderation aided recovery, sustained low volatility requires vigilance against both miscalibrations and irreducible supply uncertainties.

References

  1. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/great-moderation
  2. https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2004/20040220/
  3. https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/10.1257/jep.22.4.155
  4. https://www.bea.gov/sites/default/files/papers/WP2009-4.pdf
  5. http://smiller.faculty.unlv.edu/GREAT_MODERATION_FAT_TAILS.pdf
  6. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/great-inflation
  7. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/stock/files/has_the_business_cycle_changed_and_why.pdf
  8. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/anti-inflation-measures
  9. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w4322/w4322.pdf
  10. https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/62cfde42-3fbc-4b6e-b308-c78dd32515e6/president-reagan-s-economic-legacy-great-expansion-oct-2000.pdf
  11. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Reaganomics.html
  12. https://www.clevelandfed.org/publications/economic-commentary/2008/ec-20080301-the-great-moderation-good-luck-good-policy-or-less-oil-dependence
  13. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165188910001685
  14. https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/2025/jan/volcker-tightening-cycle-explaining-1982-course-reversal
  15. https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr325.html
  16. https://mcmahonecon.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/main.pdf
  17. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w14048/w14048.pdf
  18. https://www.nber.org/papers/w9127
  19. https://www.bde.es/webbde/SES/Secciones/Publicaciones/PublicacionesSeriadas/DocumentosTrabajo/07/Fic/dt0735e.pdf
  20. https://www.clevelandfed.org/publications/working-paper/2007/wp-0717-oil-and-the-great-moderation
  21. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp865.pdf
  22. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/speech/2024/november/catherine-l-mann-society-of-professional-economists-annual-conference
  23. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp769.pdf
  24. https://www.frbsf.org/wp-content/uploads/gali_gambetti.pdf
  25. https://www.nber.org/papers/w11728
  26. https://www.kansascityfed.org/documents/3326/PDF-Rajan2005.pdf
  27. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=842464
  28. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/macroeconomic-dynamics/article/great-moderation-and-the-financial-cycle/BA087C44A32EDE046451D9E223F7BE3E
  29. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2014-04-10-minsky-conference_speech.pdf
  30. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2033157
  31. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5044788_Has_Financial_Development_Made_the_World_Riskier
  32. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/myth-financial-innovation-and-great-moderation
  33. https://smiller.faculty.unlv.edu/GREAT_MODERATION_FAT_TAILS.pdf
  34. https://www.[investopedia](/page/Investopedia).com/terms/g/great-moderation.asp
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0164070412000298
  36. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/was-there-a-great-moderation-for-inflation-volatility-20170629.html
  37. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2016/files/2016093pap.pdf
  38. https://www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/2011/res2/pdf/fm.pdf
  39. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/0503_monetary_policy_kohn.pdf
  40. https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/testimony/bernanke20100902a.htm
  41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187035501830020X
  42. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/great-recession-and-its-aftermath
  43. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/mac.3.4.147
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1057521918303880
  45. https://www.heritage.org/report/the-myth-financial-market-deregulation
  46. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45018840
  47. https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2012/05/the-great-moderation-forecast-uncertainty-and-the-great-recession/
  48. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/subprime-mortgage-crisis
  49. https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/files/pdfs/banking/spa_2007_05.pdf?la=en
  50. https://www.fdic.gov/media/18636
  51. https://www.rba.gov.au/education/resources/explainers/the-global-financial-crisis.html
  52. https://www.bea.gov/data/gdp/gross-domestic-product
  53. https://www.bu.edu/econ/files/2020/05/gm-20200219.pdf
  54. https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2022/html/ecb.sp220827~93f7d07535.en.html
  55. https://www.bis.org/publ/arpdf/ar2024e2.htm
  56. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/from-the-great-moderation-to-the-great-recession-and-beyond-how-did-we-get-here-and-what-lessons-have-we-learned/
  57. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/spn/2010/spn1003.pdf
  58. https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/the-federal-reserves-responses-to-the-post-covid-period-of-high-inflation-20240214.html
  59. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/BPEA-FA22_WEB_Ball_Leigh_Mishra_updated.pdf
  60. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Eggertsson-Kohn-conference-draft_5.23.23.pdf
  61. https://www.barrons.com/articles/a-great-moderation-slow-growth-inflation-ae95f283
  62. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w33711/w33711.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.