Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Great Moderation

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 2007–2008 financial crisis.^[1]
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 1980s, alongside a two-thirds reduction in inflation volatility.^[2]^[3]
It encompassed the longest economic expansion in the U.S. since World War II, with fewer and milder recessions, low and stable inflation rates, and robust productivity gains that supported noninflationary growth.^[1]
Explanations for the phenomenon remain contested among economists, with empirical evidence supporting roles for enhanced monetary policy—such as systematic inflation targeting and adherence to rules approximating the Taylor rule—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.^[2]^[3]^[1]
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.^[1]

Definition and Historical Period

Key Characteristics of Reduced Volatility

The Great Moderation was characterized by a substantial decline in the volatility of key macroeconomic indicators, particularly evident in the United States from the mid-1980s until the onset of the 2007-2009 financial crisis. 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.^[3] 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.^[2] Inflation volatility exhibited an even more pronounced stabilization, with the standard deviation of quarterly inflation measures dropping from around 3.0 percent pre-1984 to 1.2 percent post-1984, a decline of about 60 percent.^[3] This reduction, described as a two-thirds decrease in variability, facilitated more predictable economic planning and diminished the resources allocated to inflation hedging.^[2] Similarly, unemployment rate fluctuations moderated, with the standard deviation decreasing from 1.6 percent to 0.8 percent over the same breakpoint.^[3] These patterns extended beyond aggregate measures, as evidenced by diminished covariances across states and industries in GDP components, underscoring a broad-based dampening of business cycle fluctuations rather than isolated sectoral improvements.^[4] Overall, the era featured steadier real GDP growth and personal consumption expenditure inflation compared to prior volatility, marking the longest peacetime expansion in U.S. history up to that point.^[1] This reduced macroeconomic uncertainty supported sustained economic expansions with low and stable inflation, though the precise mechanisms linking these micro- and macro-level stabilizations remain subject to ongoing econometric scrutiny.^[3]

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.^[1] This timeline aligns with the stabilization following the aggressive monetary tightening under Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker in the early 1980s, culminating in the lead-up to the subprime mortgage crisis and the Great Recession beginning in December 2007.^[1] 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.^[2] Specifically, studies document the quarterly GDP growth standard deviation falling from about 1.1% in the pre-1984 period to around 0.5% afterward.^[5] Inflation volatility exhibited an even more pronounced moderation, with the standard deviation of quarterly CPI inflation decreasing by approximately two-thirds over the same transition.^[2] 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%.^[3] Unemployment rate fluctuations similarly diminished, contributing to overall economic stability, though the period's end revealed vulnerabilities in financial leverage and asset prices not captured in standard volatility measures.^[1]

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 monetary policy, and exacerbated by external shocks such as the 1973 Arab oil embargo and the 1979 Iranian Revolution. This period saw inflation volatility intensify, with the standard deviation of four-quarter changes in the GDP deflator remaining high amid repeated accelerations and policy missteps that accommodated rising price pressures.^[6]^[7] Output volatility was similarly pronounced, with the standard deviation of four-quarter real GDP growth averaging around 2.0% in the 1960s, rising to 2.7% in the 1970s, and sustaining at 2.6% through the early 1980s. The economy endured four recessions between 1965 and 1982, including the severe 1973-1975 downturn triggered by oil shocks and the 1981-1982 contraction, during which unemployment peaked near 11%. These episodes reflected stagflation dynamics, where high inflation coexisted with sluggish growth and elevated unemployment—such as over 7% joblessness amid 12% inflation in 1974—underscoring the instability from supply disruptions and inconsistent demand management.^[3]^[7]^[6] Monetary policy during this era contributed to sustained volatility by prioritizing output stabilization over price stability, often underestimating inflationary persistence and overestimating potential GDP in real time. Federal Reserve actions, including rapid money supply growth in response to 1970s shocks, amplified business cycle 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.^[6]^[3]

Policy Shifts in the Early 1980s

In October 1979, Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker announced a shift in monetary policy operating procedures, moving from targeting interest rates to controlling nonborrowed reserves in order to restrain money supply growth and combat persistent inflation, which had reached 13.5% by year-end.^[8] This change allowed the federal funds rate to rise sharply, peaking at nearly 20% in June 1981, inducing a severe recession from July 1981 to November 1982 with unemployment climbing to 10.8%.^[1] Despite the short-term economic pain, the policy succeeded in reducing inflation to 3.2% by 1983, establishing central bank credibility in prioritizing price stability over output stabilization and marking a departure from the discretionary approaches of the 1970s that had accommodated inflationary pressures.^[9] Under President Ronald Reagan, elected in November 1980, fiscal policy emphasized supply-side reforms, including the Economic Recovery Tax Act of August 1981, which reduced the top marginal income tax rate from 70% to 50% and corporate rates from 46% to 34%, while accelerating depreciation allowances to incentivize investment.^[10] Complementary deregulation efforts accelerated, building on prior airline and trucking reforms by easing restrictions in energy, finance, and telecommunications; for instance, the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982 expanded thrift institutions' lending powers and removed interest rate ceilings, aiming to enhance market competition and efficiency.^[11] 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 demand management.^[12] The combined monetary restraint and fiscal liberalization in the early 1980s disrupted entrenched inflationary expectations, with real GDP volatility declining markedly post-1982 as the economy transitioned from the high-inflation regime of the 1970s, where standard deviation of quarterly GDP growth averaged 3.3% from 1960-1982, to a more stable path thereafter.^[3] Empirical analyses, such as those examining Federal Reserve 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.^[13] 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.^[14]

Primary Causes

Enhancements in Monetary Policy

One key enhancement in U.S. monetary policy during the Great Moderation was the aggressive disinflationary measures implemented by Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker from 1979 to 1987, which broke the back of entrenched high inflation expectations following the Great Inflation period. Volcker raised the federal funds rate to nearly 20% in 1981, enduring a sharp recession but successfully reducing inflation from over 12% in the mid-1970s to around 4% by 1983, thereby establishing a foundation of price stability that lowered overall macroeconomic volatility starting in the mid-1980s.^[1] Under Alan Greenspan, who served as Fed Chairman from 1987 to 2006, monetary policy shifted toward more systematic, rule-like responses that approximated the Taylor rule, prescribing federal funds rate adjustments exceeding one-for-one with deviations in inflation from target and output from potential. This approach helped anchor inflation 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.^[1]^[2] Empirical analyses attribute much of the reduced volatility in inflation—and to a lesser extent output—to these policy improvements, including stronger adherence to the Taylor principle (where interest rates rise more than inflation to stabilize expectations) post-1979. Federal Reserve Governor Ben Bernanke argued in 2004 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 inflation moderation, with systematic policy minimizing amplification of supply shocks such as oil price fluctuations.^[2]^[12]

Structural Market-Driven Changes

Improvements in inventory management practices, facilitated by advances in computing 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.^[2] 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 1980s onward.^[15] Empirical analysis indicates that enhanced inventory control practices explained up to 20-25% of the moderation in aggregate fluctuations, as they curtailed the "bullwhip effect" where small upstream demand variations escalate downstream.^[16] Deregulation across key industries further promoted structural efficiency by fostering competition and price flexibility. Legislative actions, such as the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 and the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, dismantled price controls and entry barriers in transportation sectors, leading to lower costs and more responsive supply adjustments.^[1] These reforms extended to energy and telecommunications in the 1980s and 1990s, enabling markets to allocate resources more dynamically and absorb shocks without propagating them into broader output swings.^[2] Consequently, the economy exhibited greater resilience to sector-specific disturbances, as evidenced by stabilized relative prices and reduced cyclical amplitudes in affected industries.^[3] The transition toward a service-oriented economy also underpinned market-driven stability, with the share of manufacturing in U.S. GDP dropping from approximately 20% in 1980 to under 12% by 2007.^[2] Services, being less inventory-intensive and more demand-elastic, inherently generate lower volatility compared to goods production, which is prone to supply chain disruptions.^[17] This sectoral reallocation, driven by technological productivity gains and consumer preferences, diversified the economic base and mitigated the impact of traditional industrial cycles.^[3] Overall, these endogenous structural adaptations—distinct from policy interventions—enhanced the economy's capacity to self-stabilize against perturbations.^[1]

Favorable External Shocks

One prominent explanation for the Great Moderation attributes a significant portion of the reduced macroeconomic volatility to "good luck," 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 productivity and demand disturbances—accounted for roughly half of the drop in quarterly GDP growth volatility between the pre-1984 and post-1984 periods.^[18] 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 1970s, such as double-digit inflation spikes and recessions triggered by supply disruptions.^[1] 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 OPEC embargo and again in 1979 due to the Iranian Revolution, collapsed following the 1986 Saudi production increase, stabilizing at levels around $20-30 per barrel (in 2000 dollars) through much of the 1990s with minimal geopolitical interruptions.^[19] This stability reduced the propagation of supply-side impulses to output and inflation; empirical decompositions indicate that smaller oil shocks explained approximately 7% of the moderation in GDP growth volatility and 11% in inflation volatility during the period.^[20] Concurrently, the declining share of oil in aggregate production—from about 5% of nominal GDP in the early 1980s to under 3% by the 2000s—amplified this effect, muting the economy's sensitivity to price fluctuations and contributing up to one-third of the inflation moderation.^[19] 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 Cold War 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.^[3] 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.^[21]

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.^[3] 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.^[3] A key doubt arises from the timing of the volatility decline, which statistical break tests place around the early 1980s—preceding the full effects of Volcker's disinflationary tightening (initiated in 1979) and Greenspan's tenure starting in 1987.^[3] Estimates of Taylor rules, which approximate central bank behavior, reveal no discrete structural break in policy conduct between pre- and post-1984 periods, undermining claims of a paradigm shift in monetary strategy as the dominant driver.^[3] 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.^[22] International evidence further challenges monetary policy dominance, as similar declines in macroeconomic volatility occurred across developed economies, including in Europe and Japan, during the same period despite divergent monetary frameworks and without adopting U.S.-style inflation-targeting or rule-based approaches.^[3] For instance, output growth standard deviations fell by comparable magnitudes in the Euro area and the United Kingdom, where policy shifts emphasized fiscal restraint or exchange rate mechanisms rather than aggressive interest rate stabilization akin to the Federal Reserve's.^[23] This cross-country pattern implies that common global factors, such as smaller oil price shocks after the 1970s energy crises or improved inventory management, played a larger role than country-specific monetary innovations.^[12] Critics like Fernández-Villaverde et al. (2008) conclude from these findings that narratives emphasizing "better monetary policy" overstate its contribution, as micro-level data on firm and sector volatility show persistence in underlying disturbances that policy rules could not fully mitigate.^[3] While proponents such as Ben Bernanke highlighted policy's role in anchoring inflation expectations, detractors note that such benefits were secondary to exogenous reductions in shock variance, with policy potentially amplifying stability only in conjunction with these favorable conditions.^[2] This perspective underscores causal realism: monetary actions, while stabilizing, did not fundamentally alter the economy's shock propagation in a manner sufficient to explain the Moderation's scale.^[3]

Overemphasis on Luck Versus Endogenous Factors

Critics of the "good luck" hypothesis for the Great Moderation argue that it attributes excessive explanatory power to reduced variance in exogenous shocks, such as oil price fluctuations or productivity disturbances, while undervaluing endogenous factors like institutional and policy adaptations that altered economic propagation mechanisms. For instance, analyses using univariate or small-scale vector autoregression (VAR) models have suggested that shock volatility fell markedly after the mid-1980s, implying serendipity as the primary driver.^[21] However, more sophisticated structural dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) models reveal that changes in shock incidence alone cannot account for the observed decline in output and inflation volatility, as pre- and post-Moderation shock variances remain comparable when properly identified.^[21] This perspective posits that overreliance on luck overlooks causal channels where endogenous responses—such as improved supply chain resilience or demand management—dampened shock transmission, evidenced by lower persistence in macroeconomic aggregates post-1984.^[24] 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.^[24] 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.^[12] 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.^[2] Proponents of endogenous explanations emphasize that the Great Moderation's cross-country variations—stronger in the U.S. than in Europe despite similar global shocks—underscore domestic institutional evolution over mere chance. For example, U.S.-specific deregulation in energy markets post-1980s lowered oil dependency endogenously, stabilizing supply responses, whereas exogenous shock reductions would predict uniform global moderation.^[12] Critiques of overemphasizing luck warn that such views foster complacency, as they imply stability was non-replicable and vulnerable to shock resumption, ignoring replicable endogenous levers like enhanced central bank credibility gained through consistent inflation targeting from 1990s onward. This debate highlights a causal realism wherein endogenous adaptations, verifiable through structural VAR impulse response functions showing muted post-shock dynamics, provide a more robust account than probabilistic good fortune.^[21]^[24]

Hidden Risks from Financial Innovations

Financial innovations during the Great Moderation, such as securitization of assets, credit derivatives, and expanded use of over-the-counter instruments, were often credited with enhancing risk dispersion and contributing to economic stability by allowing better matching of risks to investors' preferences.^[25] 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. Raghuram Rajan, in his 2005 analysis, contended that while financial deepening increased economies' risk-bearing capacity, it simultaneously incentivized intermediaries—like investment managers and banks—to pursue skewed return distributions, loading up on rare but severe losses to meet performance benchmarks amid competitive pressures.^[26] This dynamic fostered systemic fragility, as dispersed risks reconcentrated in opaque corners of the financial system, evading traditional regulatory oversight.^[27] A key mechanism involved moral hazard 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.^[28] Empirical evidence from the period shows rising household and non-financial debt-to-GDP ratios—from around 100% in the early 1980s to over 150% by 2007—fueled by easier credit access via innovations, which sustained consumption but heightened sensitivity to shocks.^[29] Such buildup concealed fragility, as measured volatility in output and prices declined while unobservable leverage in the shadow banking system expanded dramatically.^[30] These hidden risks materialized in the 2007-2008 crisis, where interconnected exposures via complex derivatives propagated failures from subprime mortgages across global markets, underscoring how innovations had not eliminated but relocated and amplified systemic threats.^[31] Post-crisis analyses, including those questioning the "myth" of innovation-driven moderation, highlighted that apparent stability owed more to suppressed variance in observable metrics than genuine risk reduction, with financial deepening correlating to increased procyclicality and crisis severity.^[32] 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.^[26]

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%. ^[33] 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 postwar decades, with recessions becoming shallower and less frequent. Inflation volatility exhibited even steeper declines during this period. The standard deviation of the quarterly inflation rate decreased by approximately two-thirds, from levels around 3% pre-1984 to under 1.2% in the post-1984 sample. ^[35] Overall, inflation volatility fell by about 60%, contributing to more stable price levels and reduced uncertainty in monetary planning. ^[19] This stabilization aligned with the Federal Reserve's shift toward inflation targeting under chairs like Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan, though debates persist on the exact causal drivers. ^[1] Volatility reductions extended to employment and industrial production. The standard deviation of quarterly unemployment rates halved, mirroring output trends, while sectoral output fluctuations, such as in durable goods, declined from 17.8% to 7.7% post-1983. ^[3] These empirical shifts underscore a broad-based moderation in business cycle dynamics, quantifiable through lower variance in macroeconomic aggregates. ^[36]

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.^[21]^[3] 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 economic expansion in the United States.^[2] Lower output volatility also translated to more consistent employment levels, mitigating abrupt shifts in labor markets that had previously amplified business cycle swings.^[2] Reduced macroeconomic uncertainty during this period encouraged greater household and firm confidence, facilitating sustained investment in capital and innovation as agents faced lower risks of disruptive shocks.^[17] Stable inflation, with variability declining by two-thirds, enhanced market efficiency by simplifying price signals and economic planning, while diminishing the need for resources allocated to inflation hedging, thereby freeing capital for productive uses.^[2] Stabilized real interest rates and relative prices further supported optimal decisions on consumption, inventory management, and long-term projects, fostering a virtuous cycle where predictability bolstered trend growth without elevating overheating risks.^[2] The era's stability also amplified productivity gains through structural adaptations, such as widespread adoption of information technology and just-in-time inventory systems, which minimized supply chain disruptions and operational inefficiencies that had previously exacerbated volatility.^[1] 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.^[1] 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.^[17]

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 financial market participants, 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.^[37] 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 derivatives markets.^[38] 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. Federal Reserve officials, including Ben Bernanke, publicly attributed the moderation to improved policy and structural factors in 2004, which may have reinforced perceptions that severe downturns were improbable. However, such views overlooked endogenous feedback mechanisms where low volatility incentivized innovation in opaque financial instruments, amplifying hidden fragilities without evident short-term costs.^[39] 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 moral hazard, with market actors assuming implicit bailouts or perpetual growth, ultimately rendering the period unsustainable as shocks exposed underlying leverage.^[38] 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.^[37]

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.^[40]^[41] This underappreciation of tail risks was evident in regulatory frameworks that prioritized macro stability over microprudential oversight, allowing credit cycles to expand unchecked.^[28] Monetary policy during the mid-2000s, characterized by prolonged low interest rates—such as the federal funds rate maintained at 1% from June 2003 to June 2004—exacerbated asset price distortions, particularly inflating the U.S. housing bubble through increased mortgage lending and speculation.^[42]^[40] Proponents of the Taylor rule, 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 liquidity that fueled unsustainable credit expansion rather than responding solely to the moderation's low-inflation environment.^[43] This accommodative stance, justified partly by the era's subdued volatility, contributed to a credit 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.^[42]^[44] Financial innovations and partial deregulation, 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.^[44] 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 the Heritage Foundation, argue that core regulatory failures stemmed not from deregulation per se but from inconsistent enforcement and moral hazard incentives amplified by stable macro conditions.^[45]^[41] 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.^[42]^[46] 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.^[47]

Termination and Aftermath

Triggers of the 2007-2008 Disruption

The bursting of the U.S. housing bubble 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.^[42] 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 2006-2007.^[48] 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.^[49] Financial innovations amplified the crisis through securitization, 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.^[50] By mid-2007, early warning signs emerged with the collapse of two Bear Stearns hedge funds in June, heavily invested in subprime-linked assets, followed by liquidity strains at BNP Paribas funds in August, which froze interbank lending markets as counterparties withdrew amid uncertainty over asset values.^[51] High leverage ratios—such as investment banks operating at 30:1 debt-to-equity—exacerbated losses, with institutions like Lehman Brothers facing insolvency by September 2008 after $600 billion in asset writedowns across the sector.^[48] 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.^[40] Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke later acknowledged that this prolonged accommodation, combined with regulatory gaps in oversight of off-balance-sheet vehicles, failed to curb excessive risk-taking, though he attributed primary causes to private-sector excesses rather than policy errors alone.^[40] The resulting credit contraction—evident in the TED spread 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.^[51]

Resurgence of Volatility Post-2008

The 2008 financial crisis marked the abrupt termination of the Great Moderation, ushering in heightened macroeconomic volatility exemplified by the Great Recession, during which U.S. real GDP contracted by 2.5% in 2008 and 2.6% in 2009—the most severe downturn since the 1930s.^[42] Quarterly GDP growth exhibited extreme swings, including a -8.2% annualized decline in Q4 2008, surpassing prior postwar volatility benchmarks.^[52] 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 2010s 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 motor vehicle output incentives.^[29] Empirical analyses, such as those by Stock and Watson, indicate a regime shift back to higher volatility commencing in 2007, with standard deviations of output growth approximating pre-Moderation norms in subsequent years.^[53] Inflation remained anchored near 2% targets but with intermittent spikes tied to energy prices and fiscal stimuli, contrasting the era's prior stability.^[54] The COVID-19 pandemic 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. Unemployment 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 inflation climbed to 9.1% year-over-year in June 2022 amid supply disruptions and expansive policies, prompting Federal Reserve 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.^[55] By the mid-2020s, volatility persisted in fragmented forms, including regional banking stresses in 2023 (e.g., Silicon Valley Bank 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 policy or productivity 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 monetary policy rules, such as those approximating the Taylor rule, in reducing output and inflation volatility by anchoring expectations and responding predictably to deviations from targets.^[2] Central banks' shift from discretionary "go-stop" interventions in the 1970s to credible commitments to price stability under leaders like Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan 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.^[1] Policymakers should prioritize such rules-based approaches over ad-hoc measures to mitigate policy errors that amplify shocks.^[2] 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.^[56] Monetary policy alone proved insufficient, underscoring the need for complementary macroprudential tools, such as countercyclical capital buffers under Basel III, to constrain risk-taking during prolonged expansions.^[56] Regulators must monitor credit aggregates and asset prices alongside traditional indicators, avoiding overreliance on inflation targets that ignore tail risks.^[57] In the 2020s context, with resurgent volatility from factors like geopolitical fragmentation and climate shocks, lessons emphasize resilience through diversified policy instruments rather than assuming perpetual moderation from "good luck" or past structural gains alone.^[22] 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 supply chain disruptions that eluded earlier models.^[2] Policymakers should thus integrate fiscal stabilizers and enhanced international coordination to prevent moderation-induced vulnerabilities from recurring.^[57]

Evaluations in the 2020s Context

The COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath in the early 2020s 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 the 1930s, driven by lockdowns and supply disruptions.^[52] This was followed by a sharp rebound in 2021, with growth exceeding 5%, but accompanied by an inflation surge where the Consumer Price Index 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 supply chain bottlenecks.^[58]^[59] Central banks, drawing on frameworks refined during the Moderation era, responded with aggressive rate hikes—the Federal Reserve lifting its federal funds rate from near-zero in March 2020 to 5.25-5.50% by July 2023—facilitating disinflation without triggering a recession, often termed a "soft landing."^[58] This outcome has led some analysts to argue that core elements of the Great Moderation, such as credible monetary policy rules and improved demand management, remain effective against transitory shocks, as evidenced by inflation returning to around 2-3% by mid-2024 amid sustained employment gains.^[22] However, critiques emphasize that the episode exposed limitations, including initial underestimation of inflation persistence by policymakers, which prolonged the surge and eroded central bank credibility temporarily, with supply-side factors like energy prices and deglobalization amplifying volatility beyond what demand-side tools could fully mitigate.^[55]^[60] By 2025, evaluations increasingly question whether a "new Great Moderation" is emerging, characterized by muted growth around 2% and subdued inflation fluctuations, potentially due to structural deleveraging and technological efficiencies offsetting geopolitical risks.^[61] 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 aggregate supply curves appear steeper amid recent shocks compared to the 1980s-2000s.^[62] Economists like Catherine L. Mann have contrasted "good policy" explanations—favoring adaptive inflation targeting—with "good luck" views, noting that the 2020s' exogenous shocks test the former's resilience more rigorously than prior benign conditions.^[22] Overall, the decade underscores that while policy innovations from the Great Moderation era aided recovery, sustained low volatility requires vigilance against both demand miscalibrations and irreducible supply uncertainties.

References

[1]
The Great Moderation | Federal Reserve History
The significant decline in macroeconomic volatility that began in the mid-1980s and came to be known as the Great Moderation has been documented by many, ...
[2]
FRB: Speech, Bernanke--The Great Moderation--February 20, 2004
Feb 20, 2004 · Several writers on the topic have dubbed this remarkable decline in the variability of both output and inflation "the Great Moderation."
[3]
Interpreting the Great Moderation - American Economic Association
Most advanced economies have experienced a striking decline in the volatility of aggregate economic activity since the early 1980s. Volatility.
[4]
[PDF] Declines in the Volatility of the US Economy; A Detailed Look
This paper uses GDP-by-state and industry data, and looks at the decline in volatility of the U.S. economy that occurred in about 1984.
[5]
http://smiller.faculty.unlv.edu/GREAT_MODERATION_FAT_TAILS.pdf
[6]
The Great Inflation | Federal Reserve History
Inflation began ratcheting upward in the mid-1960s and reached more than 14 percent in 1980. It eventually declined to average only 3.5 percent in the latter ...Sections · The Opportunity: Fiscal... · From High Inflation To...
[7]
[PDF] Has the Business Cycle Changed and Why? - Harvard University
the 1960s the standard deviation of GDP growth was approximately 2.0 ... GDP, the standard deviation fell during the mid-1980s by approximately. Page ...
[8]
Volcker's Announcement of Anti-Inflation Measures
In October 1979, Fed Chairman Paul Volcker announced new measures by the Federal Open Market Committee aimed at reining in the inflation that had afflicted the ...
[9]
[PDF] MONETARY POLICY AND INFLATION IN THE 1980s
The very short period of tight monetary policy and weak economic activity was not enough to reduce the rate of inflation. The Reagan-Volcker Disinflation Policy.<|separator|>
[10]
[PDF] President Reagan's Economic Legacy: The Great Expansion
In the recession of the early 1980s, the economic policies of President Reagan that ... The Reagan Administration's policies of lower tax rates, deregulation ...
[11]
Reaganomics - Econlib
Deregulation was clearly the lowest priority among the major elements of the Reagan economic program. Monetary policy was somewhat erratic but, on net, quite ...
[12]
The Great Moderation: Good Luck, Good Policy, or Less Oil ...
The moderation of US GDP and inflation is substantially due to better monetary policy (especially for inflation) and smaller shocks hitting the economy ( ...Missing: timeline metrics
[13]
Sources of the great moderation: A time-series analysis of GDP ...
The changes in Federal Reserve stabilization policies that occurred during the early 1980s support the view that an improved monetary policy played an important ...Missing: shifts | Show results with:shifts
[14]
The Volcker Tightening Cycle: Explaining the 1982 Course Reversal
Jan 16, 2025 · There is no doubt that Volcker and the FOMC dramatically brought down inflation from an elevated level by tightening monetary policy. In the ...Missing: moderation | Show results with:moderation
[15]
Durable Goods Inventories and the Great Moderation
This paper revisits the hypothesis that changes in inventory management were an important contributor to volatility reductions during the Great Moderation. It ...
[16]
[PDF] Beyond Inventory Management: The Bullwhip Effect and the Great ...
Combining the two, business practices have contributed to at least 20-25% of the overall Great Moderation. Bet- ter practices could have contributed more, ...
[17]
[PDF] NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES INTERPRETING THE GREAT ...
In the end, we conclude that a substantial component of the Great Moderation reflects reductions in short-term volatility that have had little or no apparent ...
[18]
Has the Business Cycle Changed and Why? | NBER
Aug 29, 2002 · This paper investigates this large drop in the cyclical volatility OF real economic.activity. The paper has two objectives.
[19]
[PDF] OIL AND THE GREAT MODERATION - Banco de España
We assess the extent to which the great US macroeconomic stability since the mid-1980s can be accounted for by changes in oil shocks and the oil share in ...<|separator|>
[20]
Oil and the Great Moderation - Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland
We find that the reduced oil share accounted for as much as one-third of the inflation moderation and 13% of the growth moderation, while smaller oil shocks ...
[21]
[PDF] Explaining the Great Moderation: it is not the shocks
This paper revisits the results on the causes of the Great Moderation on output and inflation volatility and shows that the typical macroeconomic models, ...
[22]
The Great Moderation 20 years on – and beyond - Bank of England
Nov 14, 2024 · In the post-WW2 period, an increase in trend inflation is associated with a more volatile and unstable economy, which also tends to destabilize ...<|separator|>
[23]
[PDF] The 'Great Moderation' in the United Kingdom
4.1.1 The Great Inflation. Starting from the Great Inflation episode, until the very end of 1970s, coinciding with the beginning of the Thatcher disinflation ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[24]
[PDF] On the Sources of the Great Moderation
Abstract. The remarkable decline in macroeconomic volatility experienced by the U.S. economy since the mid-80s (the so-called Great Moderation).Missing: characteristics | Show results with:characteristics
[25]
Has Financial Development Made the World Riskier? | NBER
Nov 7, 2005 · Developments in the financial sector have led to an expansion in its ability to spread risks. The increase in the risk bearing capacity of economies.
[26]
[PDF] Has Financial Development Made the World Riskier?
The expansion in the variety of intermediaries and financial trans- actions has major benefits, including reducing the transactions costs of investing, ...
[27]
Has Financial Development Made the World Riskier?
Jan 25, 2006 · Developments in the financial sector have led to an expansion in its ability to spread risks. The increase in the risk bearing capacity of ...
[28]
The great moderation and the financial cycle
Sep 15, 2025 · In this regard, I sharpen the finding of an increased contribution of the financial sector to output volatility in the Great Moderation by ...Missing: critiques | Show results with:critiques
[29]
[PDF] Whatever Happened to the Great Moderation? Remarks at the 23rd ...
Apr 10, 2014 · Disaggregating the GDP data, the reduced volatility of consumption is one of the major sources of the Great Moderation—and this reduced ...
[30]
Financial Innovations and the Risk Paradox - SSRN
Apr 18, 2012 · ... Great Moderation excess optimism had prevailed with risks chronically underpriced or simply ignored, while revealing the dark side of the ...
[31]
(PDF) Has Financial Development Made the World Riskier?
PDF | Developments in the financial sector have led to an expansion in its ability to spread risks. The increase in the risk bearing capacity of.
[32]
The myth of financial innovation and the Great Moderation - CEPR
Nov 8, 2011 · Deregulation was followed by a burst of innovation, a step-up in leverage, an increase in cross-border capital flows, and larger financial ...
[33]
[PDF] The Great Moderation and Leptokurtosis after GARCH Adjustment
A clear decline in the standard deviation of the growth rate occurs from 1.1040 in the pre-1984 sample to 0.4934 in the post-1984 sample. The p-values for the ...
[34]
The Great Moderation: What it is, How it Works - Investopedia
The Great Moderation was a period of decreased macroeconomic volatility in the United States from the mid-1980s to the financial crisis in 2007.
[35]
An overhaul of Federal Reserve doctrine: Nominal income and the ...
The Great Moderation is often characterized by the decline in the variability of output and inflation from earlier periods.
[36]
The Fed - Was There a Great Moderation for Inflation Volatility?
Jun 29, 2017 · Most accounts of the "Great Moderation"--a decline in macroeconomic volatility in the decades prior to the Great Recession--focus on employment ...
[37]
[PDF] Learning from History: Volatility and Financial Crises
We also demonstrate that low volatility over a prolonged period leads to higher risk-taking, supporting Minsky's hypothesis. Finally, we contribute to the ...
[38]
[PDF] Monetary Policy Strategy: Lessons from the Crisis
known as the Great Moderation, made policymakers complacent about the risks from financial disruptions. The benign economic environment leading up to 2007 ...
[39]
[PDF] How Has Monetary Policy Changed in the Last 25 Years?
• The Great Moderation. • Only two mild recessions since 1983. • Inflation ... • Build up of risk, complacency. Page 5. Monetary Policy in the crisis and ...<|separator|>
[40]
Causes of the Recent Financial and Economic Crisis
Sep 2, 2010 · ... Great Moderation, monetary policy helped induce excessive complacency and insufficient attention to risk. Even though the two decades before ...Missing: controversies | Show results with:controversies
[41]
The Debate over the Origin of the Great Recession in the United States
According to Allan Greenspan (2007), the origin of the crisis that put an end to the period of the Great Moderation in 2007 dates back to the end of the 1980s, ...
[42]
The Great Recession and Its Aftermath - Federal Reserve History
The period known as the Great Moderation came to an end when the decade-long expansion in US housing market activity peaked in 2006 and residential ...
[43]
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/mac.3.4.147
[44]
The run-up to the global financial crisis: A longer historical view of ...
... great moderation.” The rising asset prices and lax regulation caused excessive and predatory lending, high leverage, and excessive risk taking by financial ...
[45]
The Myth of Financial Market Deregulation | The Heritage Foundation
Apr 28, 2016 · A persistent myth regarding the 2008 financial crisis is that it was caused by deregulation of financial markets. All such claims are wrong.
[46]
GREAT MODERATION AND GREAT RECESSION - jstor
Many have argued thatthe Great Recession of 2008 marks the end of the reduction in output volatility known as theGreat Moderation. This article shows ...Missing: linkages scholarly
[47]
The Great Moderation, Forecast Uncertainty, and the Great Recession
May 14, 2012 · In this post, we attempt to quantify the role the Great Moderation played in making the Great Recession appear nearly impossible in the eyes of macroeconomists.<|separator|>
[48]
Subprime Mortgage Crisis | Federal Reserve History
This lowered the demand for housing, leading to sliding house prices that fueled expectations of still more declines, further reducing the demand for homes.
[49]
[PDF] Understanding the Subprime Mortgage Crisis
The subprime mortgage crisis of 2007 was characterized by an unusually large fraction of subprime mort- gages originated in 2006 and 2007 being delinquent or ...
[50]
[PDF] Origins of the Crisis - FDIC
Among the many reasons mentioned above for the puncturing of the housing bubble was new pricing information that contributed to the decline in MBS values.
[51]
The Global Financial Crisis | Explainer | Education | RBA
Main Causes of the GFC · 1. Excessive risk-taking in a favourable macroeconomic environment · 2. Increased borrowing by banks and investors · 3. Regulation and ...
[52]
Gross Domestic Product | U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
Sep 26, 2025 · In the first quarter, real GDP decreased 0.6 percent (revised). The increase in real GDP in the second quarter primarily reflected a decrease in ...
[53]
[PDF] The Great Moderation: Updated Evidence with Joint Tests for ...
One of the striking empirical facts in the U.S. economy is the presence of a sharp decline of macroeconomic volatility in the mid-80s, the so-called Great ...
[54]
Monetary policy and the Great Volatility - European Central Bank
Aug 27, 2022 · There is broad agreement that better monetary policy was an important factor behind the Great Moderation.Missing: resurgence post-
[55]
II. Monetary policy in the 21st century: lessons learned and ...
Jun 30, 2024 · The GFC marked the end of the so-called Great Moderation – a period of remarkable macroeconomic stability, at least in advanced economies ...
[56]
From the Great Moderation to the Great Recession and beyond
Sep 7, 2018 · ... Great Moderation. The reasons for this good performance were many and some are permanent. Financial innovations allowed more sophisticated ...
[57]
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/spn/2010/spn1003.pdf
[58]
The Federal Reserve's responses to the post-Covid period of high ...
Feb 14, 2024 · Here we review the sequence of actions taken by the Committee between late 2020 and mid-2023 as well as discuss some issues it contemplated along the way.
[59]
[PDF] Understanding US Inflation during the COVID-19 Era
Sep 21, 2022 · ABSTRACT This paper analyzes the dramatic rise in US inflation since 2020, which we decompose into a rise in core inflation as measured by ...
[60]
[PDF] The Inflation Surge of the 2020s: The Role of Monetary Policy
May 23, 2023 · inflation surges. If we consider the period from 1993-2008, a period often associated with the. “Great Moderation” when inflation stayed ...
[61]
https://www.barrons.com/articles/a-great-moderation-slow-growth-inflation-ae95f283
[62]
[PDF] A Theory of Supply Function Choice and Aggregate Supply
Quantitatively, our theory can rationalize the flattening of aggregate supply during the Great Moderation and steepening during the 1970s and 2020s. At the ...Missing: causes | Show results with:causes