Great Recession/Addendum: Difference between revisions
imported>Nick Gardner |
imported>Nick Gardner No edit summary |
||
| Line 138: | Line 138: | ||
|align="center"| | |align="center"| | ||
|} | |} | ||
The government introduced [[fiscal stimulus]] measures amounting to 4 per cent of GDP spread over the three years 2008-10<ref name=stimulus/>. | |||
====Central and Southern America==== | ====Central and Southern America==== | ||
| Line 204: | Line 207: | ||
|align="center"| | |align="center"| | ||
|} | |} | ||
The rapid growth of the British economy in the early years of the 21st century had been partly due to the success of its comparatively large financial sector and to the development of a comparatively vigorous housing boom, and those factors had a strong influence upon the impact of the recession that followed the collapse of the Lehman Brothers bank in the United States. Even before that collapse, some of its banks had been forced to make large writedowns because of their involvement in the [[subprime mortgages crisis]] and there had been a run on one of them <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6996136.stm ''Rush on Northern Rock Continues'', BBC News 17 September 2007]</ref>, but the banking panic that followed the fall of Lehman Brothers, threatened the continued existence of the financial system. In October 2008 the British Government announced a £500 billion rescue scheme <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7658277.stm Rescue Plan for UK Banks Unveiled, BBC News 8 October 2008]</ref>, including powers to take equity stakes in ailing banks and an undertaking to guarantee interbank loans. An impending collapse of the UK's financial system was averted, but the surviving banks adopted a policy of [[Leverage|deleveraging]] that resulted in a severe [[credit crunch]] followed by a general economic downturn. In the second half of 2008 gdp fell by 2.2 per cent with falls in financial sector output and in housing and commercial investment. The effective exchange rate fell by about 20 per cent during 2008, but its effect was more than offset by falling overseas demand, and there was also a fall in exports. Early [[fiscal policy]] and [[monetary policy]] action was taken to tackle the growing recession . A [[fiscal stimulus]] amounting to 1. | The rapid growth of the British economy in the early years of the 21st century had been partly due to the success of its comparatively large financial sector and to the development of a comparatively vigorous housing boom, and those factors had a strong influence upon the impact of the recession that followed the collapse of the Lehman Brothers bank in the United States. Even before that collapse, some of its banks had been forced to make large writedowns because of their involvement in the [[subprime mortgages crisis]] and there had been a run on one of them <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6996136.stm ''Rush on Northern Rock Continues'', BBC News 17 September 2007]</ref>, but the banking panic that followed the fall of Lehman Brothers, threatened the continued existence of the financial system. In October 2008 the British Government announced a £500 billion rescue scheme <ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7658277.stm Rescue Plan for UK Banks Unveiled, BBC News 8 October 2008]</ref>, including powers to take equity stakes in ailing banks and an undertaking to guarantee interbank loans. An impending collapse of the UK's financial system was averted, but the surviving banks adopted a policy of [[Leverage|deleveraging]] that resulted in a severe [[credit crunch]] followed by a general economic downturn. In the second half of 2008 gdp fell by 2.2 per cent with falls in financial sector output and in housing and commercial investment. The effective exchange rate fell by about 20 per cent during 2008, but its effect was more than offset by falling overseas demand, and there was also a fall in exports. Early [[fiscal policy]] and [[monetary policy]] action was taken to tackle the growing recession . A [[fiscal stimulus]] amounting to 1.5 per cent of GDP<ref name=stimulus/> was introduced by the November Pre-Budget Report, including a temporary 2.5 percentage point reduction in [[Taxation#Taxes on consumption|value-added tax]] and a bringing forward of £3 billion of capital investment, and by March 2009 the Bank of England had reduced its [[discount rate]] rate from 5% to 0.5% and begun a programme of [[quantitative easing]]. | ||
By 2010, the UK’s [[national debt]] had risen from under 50 percent of GDP to over 80 percent<ref name=debt/>, due mainly to the operation of its[[automatic stabilisers]], prompting expressions of concern by the [[credit rating agency|credit rating agencies]] and plans for its reduction were being debated. had In its pre-budget report of 2008 and its budget of 2009 the Government planned a [[fiscal tightening]] that would increase gradually to 6.4% of national income over eight years. Their plans included a reduction in [[public expenditure]] of £35 billion which, together with tax increases, would reduce borrowing by 3.2% of GDP by 2014. The Institute of Fiscal Studies estimates that, under those plans, the[[national debt]] would roughly double from pre-crisis levels, to a little under 80% of national income, before declining again to its pre-crisis levels by the early 2030s<ref>[http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn87.pdf. Robert Chote et al: ''Britain's Fiscal Squeeze, the Choices Ahead'', IFS Briefing Note BN87, September 2009]</ref>. In September, the opposition Conservative party (the party that is expected to take over government in 2010) announced plans to make expenditure reductions of only £7 billion by 2014, but the right-wing Centre for Economic and Business Research assumes that a Conservative Chancellor would take earlier action than that planned by the Government, cutting public expenditure by £80 billion and raising taxes by £20 billion<ref>[http://www.cebr.com/Resources/CEBR/The%20economics%20of%20George%20Osborne.pdf Douglas McWilliams: ''The Economics of George Osborne'', CEBR, 6 October 2009]</ref>. | By 2010, the UK’s [[national debt]] had risen from under 50 percent of GDP to over 80 percent<ref name=debt/>, due mainly to the operation of its[[automatic stabilisers]], prompting expressions of concern by the [[credit rating agency|credit rating agencies]] and plans for its reduction were being debated. had In its pre-budget report of 2008 and its budget of 2009 the Government planned a [[fiscal tightening]] that would increase gradually to 6.4% of national income over eight years. Their plans included a reduction in [[public expenditure]] of £35 billion which, together with tax increases, would reduce borrowing by 3.2% of GDP by 2014. The Institute of Fiscal Studies estimates that, under those plans, the[[national debt]] would roughly double from pre-crisis levels, to a little under 80% of national income, before declining again to its pre-crisis levels by the early 2030s<ref>[http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn87.pdf. Robert Chote et al: ''Britain's Fiscal Squeeze, the Choices Ahead'', IFS Briefing Note BN87, September 2009]</ref>. In September, the opposition Conservative party (the party that is expected to take over government in 2010) announced plans to make expenditure reductions of only £7 billion by 2014, but the right-wing Centre for Economic and Business Research assumes that a Conservative Chancellor would take earlier action than that planned by the Government, cutting public expenditure by £80 billion and raising taxes by £20 billion<ref>[http://www.cebr.com/Resources/CEBR/The%20economics%20of%20George%20Osborne.pdf Douglas McWilliams: ''The Economics of George Osborne'', CEBR, 6 October 2009]</ref>. | ||
| Line 332: | Line 335: | ||
|align="center"| | |align="center"| | ||
|} | |} | ||
The international banking panic had an immediate impact on Germany's fragmented banking system and in October 2008 the government set up a fund to guarantee the banks' debts and provide for recapitalisation and asset purchases. Although there had been falls in national output earlier in the year, the government did not at first consider further action to be necessary, but by the end of the year a fall in exports signalled the onset of major downturn, and in January of 2009 it launched a | The international banking panic had an immediate impact on Germany's fragmented banking system and in October 2008 the government set up a fund to guarantee the banks' debts and provide for recapitalisation and asset purchases. Although there had been falls in national output earlier in the year, the government did not at first consider further action to be necessary, but by the end of the year a fall in exports signalled the onset of major downturn, and in January of 2009 it launched a fiscal stimulus amounting to 3 per cent during 2009 and 2010<ref name=stimulus/>, that included reductions in income, and payroll taxes(starting in July) as well as industrial subsidies and infrastructure investments. Those discretionary actions together with the action of the [[automatic stabilisers]] were expected to increase the [[budget deficit]] to 7% of GDP and raise the [[national debt]] from its 2007 level of 65 per cent of GDP to over 80 per cent by 2010<ref name=debt/>. | ||
====France==== | ====France==== | ||
| Line 396: | Line 399: | ||
|} | |} | ||
The government | The government introduced [[fiscal stimulus]] measures amounting to 0.6 per cent of GDP spread over the two years 2009-10<ref name=stimulus/>, including infrastructure spending, measures to relieve cash-flow difficulties for small and medium-sized enterprises, tax holidays for low-income households, increased unemployment compensation, and loans to the car and aircraft industries. Together with the operation of [[automatic stabilisers]], these measures are expected to raise the [[budget deficit]] to above 8% of GDP and the [[national debt]] to over 90 per cent of GDP by 2010<ref name=debt/>. | ||
====Italy==== | ====Italy==== | ||
| Line 459: | Line 462: | ||
|align="center"| | |align="center"| | ||
|} | |} | ||
====Iceland==== | ====Iceland==== | ||
| Line 522: | Line 526: | ||
|} | |} | ||
Before the Lehman Brothers collapse in September 2008, Iceland had a thriving economy, its government had a budgetary surplus, its banks had no toxic assets and its consumers had not indulged in any speculative bubbles. (Although Willem Buiter and Anne SIbert <ref> Willem Buiter and Anne SIbert: ''The Icelandic Banking Crisis and | Before the Lehman Brothers collapse in September 2008, Iceland had a thriving economy, its government had a budgetary surplus, its banks had no toxic assets and its consumers had not indulged in any speculative bubbles. (Although Willem Buiter and Anne SIbert <ref> Willem Buiter and Anne SIbert: ''The Icelandic Banking Crisis and | ||
What To Do About It'', Policy Insight No 26, Centre for Economic Policy Research, October 2008[http://www.cepr.org/pubs/PolicyInsights/PolicyInsight26.pdf]</ref>, believed that its banking model was not viable). A few months later its banking system had collapsed, its government was deeply in debt, its currency had suffered a 65 per cent depreciation, real earnings had fallen by 18 per cent, and its economy was facing a deep and prolonged recession. Those were the consequences of the impact of the international credit crunch on a banking system that had overseas debts amounting to almost ten times the country's GDP. Unable to ''roll over'' their debts, three of its largest banks had to be rescued by the government, and the consequent rise in national debt caused a flight from the national currency that made matters worse. A loan was obtained from the International Monetary Fund and recovery is expected during 2011 <ref>[http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2008/cr08362.pdf ''Country Report No. 08/362'', International Monetary Fund, November 2008]</ref>. In November 2009 the ''Moodys'' [[credit rating agency]] downgraded Iceland's government [[bond]]s to its lowest investment grade. | What To Do About It'', Policy Insight No 26, Centre for Economic Policy Research, October 2008[http://www.cepr.org/pubs/PolicyInsights/PolicyInsight26.pdf]</ref>, believed that its banking model was not viable). A few months later its banking system had collapsed, its government was deeply in debt, its currency had suffered a 65 per cent depreciation, real earnings had fallen by 18 per cent, and its economy was facing a deep and prolonged recession. Those were the consequences of the impact of the international credit crunch on a banking system that had overseas debts amounting to almost ten times the country's GDP. Unable to ''roll over'' their debts, three of its largest banks had to be rescued by the government, and the consequent rise in national debt caused a flight from the national currency that made matters worse. The government introduced [[fiscal stimulus]] measures amounting to 9.4 per cent of GDP spread over the two years 2009-10<ref name=stimulus/>A loan was obtained from the International Monetary Fund and recovery is expected during 2011 <ref>[http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2008/cr08362.pdf ''Country Report No. 08/362'', International Monetary Fund, November 2008]</ref>. In November 2009 the ''Moodys'' [[credit rating agency]] downgraded Iceland's government [[bond]]s to its lowest investment grade. | ||
====Ireland==== | ====Ireland==== | ||
| Line 588: | Line 592: | ||
GDP growth rates averaging about 6 percent over the period 1995-2007 were followed by year-on-year falls of 8 percent in the 4th quarter of 2008 and 9 per cent in the first quarter of 2009, and the HCIP inflation rate fell to -3 per cent in September 2009. | GDP growth rates averaging about 6 percent over the period 1995-2007 were followed by year-on-year falls of 8 percent in the 4th quarter of 2008 and 9 per cent in the first quarter of 2009, and the HCIP inflation rate fell to -3 per cent in September 2009. | ||
The government introduced [[fiscal stimulus]] measures amounting to 4.4 per cent of GDP spread over the three years 2008-10<ref name=stimulus/> which, combined with the effects of its [[automatic stabilisers]] is expected to raise the [[national debt]] to over 80 per cent of GDP from its 2007 level of 28 per cent<ref name=debt/>. | |||
====Russia==== | ====Russia==== | ||
| Line 788: | Line 791: | ||
|} | |} | ||
Japan has suffered a much deeper recession than the other large industrialised economies mainly because of its greater reliance upon exports of cars and high-technology products. Output was also restricted by a credit crunch and by the need to reduce high inventory levels <ref>[http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/spn/2009/spn0905.pdf Martin Sommer: ''Why Has Japan Been Hit So Hard by the Global Recession?'', Staff Note SPN/09/05, International Monetary Fund, March 18, 2009]</ref>. | Japan has suffered a much deeper recession than the other large industrialised economies mainly because of its greater reliance upon exports of cars and high-technology products. Output was also restricted by a credit crunch and by the need to reduce high inventory levels <ref>[http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/spn/2009/spn0905.pdf Martin Sommer: ''Why Has Japan Been Hit So Hard by the Global Recession?'', Staff Note SPN/09/05, International Monetary Fund, March 18, 2009]</ref>. | ||
The government introduced [[fiscal stimulus]] measures amounting to 2 per cent of GDP <ref name=stimulus/>. Combined with the effect of the country's [[automatic stabilisers, its [[national debt]] (the majority of which was held by domestic investors) is expected to rise to over 200 per cent of GDP from its already massive pre-crisis level of 167 per cent<ref name=debt/>. | |||
====China==== | ====China==== | ||
| Line 914: | Line 916: | ||
|align="center"| | |align="center"| | ||
|} | |} | ||
The government introduced [[fiscal stimulus]] measures amounting to 4.6 per cent of GDP spread over the three years 2008-10<ref name=stimulus/>. | |||
In 2009 there was a revival in exports to emerging markets, growth in consumer demand and a recovery in housing and mortgage markets, and in October the central bank raised its discount rate to 3.25% | In 2009 there was a revival in exports to emerging markets, growth in consumer demand and a recovery in housing and mortgage markets, and in October the central bank raised its discount rate to 3.25% | ||
Revision as of 05:10, 29 March 2010
International recession and recovery by region
The World
The crash of 2008 had an adverse effect upon most of the world's economies, but in 2008 it was only the more vulnerable of the industrialised economies that seemed likely to suffer major downturns. By the spring of 2009, however, most of the world's economies were facing severely damage. The United States and United Kingdom economies had at first suffered more seriously than most because of collapsing housing and consumer credit booms but it soon became apparent that more serious downturns were threatening the economies of Japan and Germany. Neither had experienced such booms, but both had proved to be exceptionally vulnerable to reductions in foreign demand for their exports resulting from reductions in world trade (which is estimated to have fallen by 7 per cent in the 4th quarter of 2008) - and particularly trade in capital goods. Most of the other developed economies (except Spain and Ireland) were also relatively free of such problems, but they too were damaged by loss of exports. The economies of commodity-exporting countries in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and South America suffered mainly from falls in commodity prices, and some other emerging economies were also damaged by the withdrawal of capital inflows from the developed economies.
America
The United States
The Federal Government introduced measures of fiscal stimulus amounting to 5.6 per cent of GDP spread over the three years 2008 to 2010[4]
By early 2009, the United States economy was suffering from a severe lack of demand. Three and a half million jobs had been lost in just over a year and businesses were responding to falling demand by laying off workers or cutting back on their hours or wages, causing families to further reduce their demand and businesses to respond with yet more layoffs and cutbacks. The problem was being made worse by the inability of the financial system to provide the credit necessary for recovery, and the resulting "credit crunch" was causing more job losses and further declines in business activity, which, in turn, was adding more pressure on the financial system. Two and a half million families had faced foreclosure in the previous year, and the reductions in personal wealth resulting from the fall in house prices were causing further reductions in demand[5]. Reports from the twelve Federal Reserve Districts in March suggested that national economic conditions deteriorated further during the reporting period of January through late February. Ten of the twelve reports indicated weaker conditions or declines in economic activity. The deterioration was broad based, with only a few sectors such as basic food production and pharmaceuticals appearing to be exceptions. Looking ahead, contacts from various districts rate the prospects for near-term improvement in economic conditions as poor, with a significant pickup not expected before late 2009 or early 2010. The availability of credit generally remained tight. Lenders continued to impose strict standards for all types of loans, with scattered reports of further tightening and particular scrutiny focused on construction projects and commercial real estate transactions.[6].
By 2010 the national debt had risen from its 2007 level of 62 percent of GDP to over 90 per cent[7]
Canada
The government introduced fiscal stimulus measures amounting to 4 per cent of GDP spread over the three years 2008-10[4].
Central and Southern America
Europe
The United Kingdom
The rapid growth of the British economy in the early years of the 21st century had been partly due to the success of its comparatively large financial sector and to the development of a comparatively vigorous housing boom, and those factors had a strong influence upon the impact of the recession that followed the collapse of the Lehman Brothers bank in the United States. Even before that collapse, some of its banks had been forced to make large writedowns because of their involvement in the subprime mortgages crisis and there had been a run on one of them [8], but the banking panic that followed the fall of Lehman Brothers, threatened the continued existence of the financial system. In October 2008 the British Government announced a £500 billion rescue scheme [9], including powers to take equity stakes in ailing banks and an undertaking to guarantee interbank loans. An impending collapse of the UK's financial system was averted, but the surviving banks adopted a policy of deleveraging that resulted in a severe credit crunch followed by a general economic downturn. In the second half of 2008 gdp fell by 2.2 per cent with falls in financial sector output and in housing and commercial investment. The effective exchange rate fell by about 20 per cent during 2008, but its effect was more than offset by falling overseas demand, and there was also a fall in exports. Early fiscal policy and monetary policy action was taken to tackle the growing recession . A fiscal stimulus amounting to 1.5 per cent of GDP[4] was introduced by the November Pre-Budget Report, including a temporary 2.5 percentage point reduction in value-added tax and a bringing forward of £3 billion of capital investment, and by March 2009 the Bank of England had reduced its discount rate rate from 5% to 0.5% and begun a programme of quantitative easing.
By 2010, the UK’s national debt had risen from under 50 percent of GDP to over 80 percent[7], due mainly to the operation of itsautomatic stabilisers, prompting expressions of concern by the credit rating agencies and plans for its reduction were being debated. had In its pre-budget report of 2008 and its budget of 2009 the Government planned a fiscal tightening that would increase gradually to 6.4% of national income over eight years. Their plans included a reduction in public expenditure of £35 billion which, together with tax increases, would reduce borrowing by 3.2% of GDP by 2014. The Institute of Fiscal Studies estimates that, under those plans, thenational debt would roughly double from pre-crisis levels, to a little under 80% of national income, before declining again to its pre-crisis levels by the early 2030s[10]. In September, the opposition Conservative party (the party that is expected to take over government in 2010) announced plans to make expenditure reductions of only £7 billion by 2014, but the right-wing Centre for Economic and Business Research assumes that a Conservative Chancellor would take earlier action than that planned by the Government, cutting public expenditure by £80 billion and raising taxes by £20 billion[11].
The Eurozone
Germany
The international banking panic had an immediate impact on Germany's fragmented banking system and in October 2008 the government set up a fund to guarantee the banks' debts and provide for recapitalisation and asset purchases. Although there had been falls in national output earlier in the year, the government did not at first consider further action to be necessary, but by the end of the year a fall in exports signalled the onset of major downturn, and in January of 2009 it launched a fiscal stimulus amounting to 3 per cent during 2009 and 2010[4], that included reductions in income, and payroll taxes(starting in July) as well as industrial subsidies and infrastructure investments. Those discretionary actions together with the action of the automatic stabilisers were expected to increase the budget deficit to 7% of GDP and raise the national debt from its 2007 level of 65 per cent of GDP to over 80 per cent by 2010[7].
France
The government introduced fiscal stimulus measures amounting to 0.6 per cent of GDP spread over the two years 2009-10[4], including infrastructure spending, measures to relieve cash-flow difficulties for small and medium-sized enterprises, tax holidays for low-income households, increased unemployment compensation, and loans to the car and aircraft industries. Together with the operation of automatic stabilisers, these measures are expected to raise the budget deficit to above 8% of GDP and the national debt to over 90 per cent of GDP by 2010[7].
Italy
Iceland
Before the Lehman Brothers collapse in September 2008, Iceland had a thriving economy, its government had a budgetary surplus, its banks had no toxic assets and its consumers had not indulged in any speculative bubbles. (Although Willem Buiter and Anne SIbert [12], believed that its banking model was not viable). A few months later its banking system had collapsed, its government was deeply in debt, its currency had suffered a 65 per cent depreciation, real earnings had fallen by 18 per cent, and its economy was facing a deep and prolonged recession. Those were the consequences of the impact of the international credit crunch on a banking system that had overseas debts amounting to almost ten times the country's GDP. Unable to roll over their debts, three of its largest banks had to be rescued by the government, and the consequent rise in national debt caused a flight from the national currency that made matters worse. The government introduced fiscal stimulus measures amounting to 9.4 per cent of GDP spread over the two years 2009-10[4]A loan was obtained from the International Monetary Fund and recovery is expected during 2011 [13]. In November 2009 the Moodys credit rating agency downgraded Iceland's government bonds to its lowest investment grade.
Ireland
A downturn in the output of the formerly booming Irish construction industry that started in 2007, intensified and developed into a full-blown economic recession in the course of 2008 and construction and property companies began to default on loans from the banks. News of their defaults made foreign banks and investors, that had been the banks' principal source of short-term finance, reluctant to risk further commitments, and a banking crisis developed. Consumer confidence fell and there was a very sharp increase in unemployment[14][15]. In an attempt to restore confidence, the Irish government undertook to guarantee loans to the banks. The budget balance fell sharply from a surplus of 3 per cent of GDP in 2006 to a deficit of over 6 per cent in 2008, and foreign investors became wary of a sovereign default, and the government's ability to finance the deficit was threatened by a general loss of confidence. In March 2009 the Standard and Poor credit rating agency downgraded its rating for Ireland from AAA to AA+[16], and April, the government decided that the only way to restore confidence was to take steps to reduce its deficit - and took the extraordinary step of increasing taxation in the midst of a recession [17]. Additional steps taken included direct purchase of stock in some banks and the establishment of the "National Asset Management Agency" - essentially a government-owned bank that will buy toxic debt from six financial institutions - both steps aimed at improving their balance sheets and freeing up capital.[18][19]
GDP growth rates averaging about 6 percent over the period 1995-2007 were followed by year-on-year falls of 8 percent in the 4th quarter of 2008 and 9 per cent in the first quarter of 2009, and the HCIP inflation rate fell to -3 per cent in September 2009. The government introduced fiscal stimulus measures amounting to 4.4 per cent of GDP spread over the three years 2008-10[4] which, combined with the effects of its automatic stabilisers is expected to raise the national debt to over 80 per cent of GDP from its 2007 level of 28 per cent[7].
Russia
The fall in the oil price combined with the collapse in world trade and a withrawal of international credit had a devastating effect upon the Russian economy, and its GDP fell by about 10 percent in the first half of 2009 [20], and its 2009 GDP is estimated to be 8.5 per cent below its 2008 level. These events prompted the central bank to inject large amounts of liquidity into the banking sector and to permit a gradual depreciation of the rouble by about 25 per cent against the dollar-euro basket. The Government launched a major fiscal stimulus in April 2009, consisting mainly of social transfer payments[6].
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania
Years of boom were followed by falls in GDP averaging 1.8 per cent in 2008 and 15.5 per cent in 2009.
Greece
The country's national debt rose by about 25 per cent above its above-average pre-crisis level of 100 per cent of GDP[7].
Asia
Japan
Japan has suffered a much deeper recession than the other large industrialised economies mainly because of its greater reliance upon exports of cars and high-technology products. Output was also restricted by a credit crunch and by the need to reduce high inventory levels [22]. The government introduced fiscal stimulus measures amounting to 2 per cent of GDP [4]. Combined with the effect of the country's [[automatic stabilisers, its national debt (the majority of which was held by domestic investors) is expected to rise to over 200 per cent of GDP from its already massive pre-crisis level of 167 per cent[7].
China
Australia
The government introduced fiscal stimulus measures amounting to 4.6 per cent of GDP spread over the three years 2008-10[4]. In 2009 there was a revival in exports to emerging markets, growth in consumer demand and a recovery in housing and mortgage markets, and in October the central bank raised its discount rate to 3.25%
.
Developing countries
According to a World Bank report published in March 2009, 94 out of 116 developing countries had experienced a slowdown in economic growth in 2008. The most affected sectors were those that were that had been the most dynamic, typically urban-based exporters, construction, mining, and manufacturing[23].
References
- ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 OECD StatExtracts at[1] & [2]
- ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 seasonally adjusted [3]
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 mid-quarter figures [4]
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 OECD Economic Outlook Interim Report Chapter 3, March 2009
- ↑ Based on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's statement to the Senate Finance Committee March 4 2009
- ↑ Federal Reserve "Beige Book", March 2009
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 The State of Public Finances Cross-Country Fiscal Monitor, International Monetary Fund staff report, November 2009
- ↑ Rush on Northern Rock Continues, BBC News 17 September 2007
- ↑ Rescue Plan for UK Banks Unveiled, BBC News 8 October 2008
- ↑ Robert Chote et al: Britain's Fiscal Squeeze, the Choices Ahead, IFS Briefing Note BN87, September 2009
- ↑ Douglas McWilliams: The Economics of George Osborne, CEBR, 6 October 2009
- ↑ Willem Buiter and Anne SIbert: The Icelandic Banking Crisis and What To Do About It, Policy Insight No 26, Centre for Economic Policy Research, October 2008[5]
- ↑ Country Report No. 08/362, International Monetary Fund, November 2008
- ↑ The Tiger Tamed, The Economist, November 2008
- ↑ The Party is Definitely Over, The Economist March 19 2009
- ↑ Stacy-Marie Ishmael: S&P strips Ireland of its triple-A rating, FT-Alphaville, March 30 2009
- ↑ Budget Statement, Department of Finance, April 7, 2009
- ↑ Department of Finance, Ireland. Minister for Finance, Mr Brian Lenihan, TD, announces appointment of interim Managing Director of the National Asset Management Agency (html). Retrieved on 2009-05-12.
- ↑ Money Guide Ireland. NAMA - National Asset Management Agency. Retrieved on 2009-05-12.
- ↑ Economic Survey of Russia 2009, OECD July 2009
- ↑ Maria Grazia Attinasi, Cristina Checherita, and Christiane Nickel: What explains the surge in euro-area sovereign spreads during the financial crisis of 2007-09?, European Central Bank, 11 January 2010
- ↑ Martin Sommer: Why Has Japan Been Hit So Hard by the Global Recession?, Staff Note SPN/09/05, International Monetary Fund, March 18, 2009
- ↑ Crisis Reveals Growing Finance Gaps for Developing Countries, World Bank, 8th March 2009