{
  "id": "R44543",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R44543",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 453828,
      "date": "2016-06-24",
      "retrieved": "2016-11-28T22:00:55.697430",
      "title": "Slow Growth in the Current U.S. Economic Expansion",
      "summary": "Between 2008 and 2015, economic growth has been, depending on the indicator, one-quarter to one-half the long-term average since World War II. Economic performance has been variable throughout the post-war period, but recent growth is markedly weaker than previous low growth periods, such as 1974 to 1995. Initially, slow growth was attributed to the financial crisis and its aftermath. But even after the recession ended and financial conditions normalized, growth has remained below average in the current economic expansion. The current expansion has already lasted longer than average, but growth has not picked up at any point during the expansion. By some indicators, growth began to slow during the 2001 to 2007 period, while other indicators suggest that the slowdown is more recent and abrupt. Although this report focuses on the U.S. economy, the same pattern has occurred across other advanced economies. \nEconomists have offered a number of explanations at various points for the relatively slow recovery. These explanations are not necessarily mutually exclusive, and some economists combine elements from more than one in their diagnoses.\nSlow growth in the immediate aftermath of the crisis could be attributed to deleveraging (debt reduction) by firms and households and financial disruptions caused by the crisis, but those problems were of a temporary nature. There is historical evidence that recoveries are slower after financial crises.\nPermanent damage from the crisis, called hysteresis, would affect the subsequent recovery. For example, if long-term unemployment resulting from the crisis eroded workers\u2019 skills, it could be more difficult for them to find a job when the labor market has recovered. This factor was of greater importance early in the recovery and of waning importance as the recovery continues because it would be expected to leave the level of GDP permanently lower, but should not affect the long-term growth rate.\nSubsequent shocks to the economy during the expansion, called headwinds, could also be temporarily holding back growth. Headwinds identified at various points in the expansion include high energy prices, the European economic crisis, the emerging market slowdown, fiscal contraction, and fiscal policy uncertainty. Headwinds can be easy to identify after the fact, but there has been little systematic attempt to determine whether there have also been offsetting tailwinds or whether recent headwinds have been relatively larger than in the past.\nSecular stagnation is an explanation for the slowdown of a more long-lasting nature that posits, atypically, this expansion cannot generate a healthy pace of economic activity on its own, even with the help of aggressive monetary stimulus. This explanation has focused on persistently low interest rates and low inflation as keys to understanding what has held back growth. This explanation struggles to explain the recent return to nearly full employment, however.\nAn explanation based on structural factors would suggest a more permanent slowdown. This explanation looks at long-term shifts in the sources of long-term growth\u2014growth in labor supply and quality, investment, and productivity. For example, the aging of the population has reduced the growth rate of the labor supply. While it is unlikely that slow growth is being driven solely by structural factors\u2014that would imply the timing of the financial crisis and onset of the growth slowdown was purely coincidental\u2014the longer that slow growth persists, the more it can be attributed to structural factors.\nAs the duration of the slowdown persists, explanations based on temporary factors become less compelling and permanent factors become more compelling\u2014particularly as the labor market approaches full employment.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44543",
          "sha1": "b8edfcb60655b8eec493d57fb408f055a95e4b26",
          "filename": "files/20160624_R44543_b8edfcb60655b8eec493d57fb408f055a95e4b26.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44543",
          "sha1": "728118849d5dc3f5d5fbba2926d87ed0b807a910",
          "filename": "files/20160624_R44543_728118849d5dc3f5d5fbba2926d87ed0b807a910.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4944,
          "name": "U.S. Economy"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Economic Policy"
  ]
}