Was the Great Moderation Simply on Vacation?

Monday, September 26, 2016
great moderation
Thinkstock/Wavebreakmedia Ltd

By Christopher J. Waller, Executive Vice President and Director of Research, and Jonas Crews, Research Associate

From around 1984 to the mid-2000s, U.S. macroeconomic volatility dropped to unusually low levels. Economists dubbed the period the “Great Moderation.” With the arrival of the Great Recession, many declared the Great Moderation over. However, data indicate that the increased volatility in 2007-09 may have been a temporary blip instead of a reversion back to the days of high volatility.

To understand whether the Great Moderation has ended, we need to look at what may have caused it. There are three main explanations:

  • Good luck: The shocks that derailed growth and price stability in the 1970s and early 1980s failed to rear their ugly heads over the subsequent 20 years.
  • Structural change: Improved information technology, especially related to inventory management, and financial deregulation resulted in much smoother economic progress.
  • Better monetary policy: Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker set a precedent of aggressively reining in inflation.

The extent to which we believe each explanation played a role in the volatility reduction influences our opinion of whether the Great Moderation is likely to have returned.

  • If we believe that good luck played the largest role, then we may think we have lost those golden years forever.
  • If we believe that structural changes and/or monetary policy played a relatively larger role, then we should view the increased volatility during the Great Recession as the product of temporary factors that should have died out by now.

Fortunately, we don’t have to rely on theories to answer this question. We have seven years of GDP and inflation data. The figure below shows the volatilities of real GDP growth and inflation over the past several years.

great moderation: output growth and inflation

We can very clearly see the Great Moderation. We can also see the effects of the Great Recession. Note that the value at each date is the standard deviation in each variable using data from that quarter and the 19 quarters preceding it. Hence, it is not very surprising that the effects of the recession didn’t diminish until late 2013. Once they did, however, volatility dropped back down to levels consistent with the Great Moderation.

Because we can think of periods of high volatility and low volatility as different states of the world (like cloudy and sunny), we can estimate the probability of being in each state at a given point in time.1 The figure below plots this probability for real GDP growth.

probability of real gdp growth being in a low volatility state

The results agree with those of the first figure: The Great Recession resulted in only a temporary increase in volatility. So the data say that the Great Moderation never really left. It just took those twenty years of steady earnings growth and treated itself to a two-year vacation.

Therefore, while good luck likely played a role, a lot of credit should probably be given to a more structurally stable economy and better monetary policy. The U.S. economy experienced one of its largest shocks ever and has continued to face shocks from oil prices and international economic instability, yet it has gone back to its old low-volatility ways.

Notes and References

1 In this case, we used a Markov regime-switching model. Think of “regime” as being synonymous with “state.” The model basically looks for the presence of different states in the data. The results can then be used to estimate the probability of being in each state at a given point in the data.

Additional Resources

Posted In Output  |  Tagged christopher wallerjonas crewsgreat moderationgreat recessionvolatilitygdp
Commenting Policy: We encourage comments and discussions on our posts, even those that disagree with conclusions, if they are done in a respectful and courteous manner. All comments posted to our blog go through a moderator, so they won't appear immediately after being submitted. We reserve the right to remove or not publish inappropriate comments. This includes, but is not limited to, comments that are:
  • Vulgar, obscene, profane or otherwise disrespectful or discourteous
  • For commercial use, including spam
  • Threatening, harassing or constituting personal attacks
  • Violating copyright or otherwise infringing on third-party rights
  • Off-topic or significantly political
The St. Louis Fed will only respond to comments if we are clarifying a point. Comments are limited to 1,500 characters, so please edit your thinking before posting. While you will retain all of your ownership rights in any comment you submit, posting comments means you grant the St. Louis Fed the royalty-free right, in perpetuity, to use, reproduce, distribute, alter and/or display them, and the St. Louis Fed will be free to use any ideas, concepts, artwork, inventions, developments, suggestions or techniques embodied in your comments for any purpose whatsoever, with or without attribution, and without compensation to you. You will also waive all moral rights you may have in any comment you submit.
comments powered by Disqus

The St. Louis Fed uses Disqus software for the comment functionality on this blog. You can read the Disqus privacy policy. Disqus uses cookies and third party cookies. To learn more about these cookies and how to disable them, please see this article.

Subscribe to
On the Economy

Get notified when new content is available on our On the Economy blog.

Email Alerts  |  RSS

About the Blog

The St. Louis Fed On the Economy blog features relevant commentary, analysis, research and data from our economists and other St. Louis Fed experts.

Views expressed are not necessarily those of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis or of the Federal Reserve System.

Contact Us

For media-related questions, email mediainquiries@stls.frb.org. For all other blog-related questions or comments, email on-the-economy@stls.frb.org.