Growth and distribution after the 2007–2008 US financial crisis: who shouldered the burden of the crisis?

Abstract

The post-1980 era witnessed an increase in the frequency and severity of financial crises around the globe, the majority of which took place in low- and middle-income countries. Studies of the impacts of these crises have identified three broad sets of consequences. First, the burden of crises falls disproportionately on labor in general and low-income segments of society in particular. In the years following financial crises, wages and labor share of income fall, the rate of unemployment increases, the power of labor and labor unions is eroded, and income inequality and rates of poverty increase. Capital as a whole, on the other hand, usually recovers quickly and most of the time gains more ground. Second, the consequences of crises are visible not only through asset and income distribution, but also in government policies. Government policies in most cases favor capital, especially financial capital, at the expense of large masses. In addition, many crises have presented opportunities for further deregulation and liberalization, not only in financial markets but in the rest of the economy as well. Third, in the aftermath of financial crises in low- and middle-income economies, capital inflows may increase as international capital seeks to take advantage of the crisis and acquire domestic financial and non-financial assets. The 2007–2008 financial crisis in the US provides an opportunity to extend this analysis to a leading high-income country and see if the patterns visible in other crises are also visible in this case. Using the questions and issues typically raised in examinations of low- and middle- income countries, we study the consequences of the 2007–2008 US financial crisis and complement the budding literature on the ‘Great Recession.’ In particular, we examine the impacts of the crisis on labor and capital, with a focus on distributional effects of the crisis such as changes in income shares of labor and capital, and the evolution of inequality and poverty. We also analyse the role of government policies through a study of government taxation and spending policies, and examine capital flow patterns.

The bad, the good and the ugly

“…Når det gjelder de to siste krisene, er fallende lønnsandel av verdiskapingen dokumentert av Bjørnstad et al (2017) for perioden 1988-95 og av Dufour og Orhangazi (2016) for USA i perioden 2008-11. I kjølvannet av den globale krisa bidro også økningen i lederlønninger og bonuser til økende forskjeller (Dufour & Orhangazi, 2016, se også Tooze, 2018, kap. 19).…”

Inequality, financialisation and stagnation

“…In the recovery period 2009–2014, the top 1% captured 58% of total growth as their income grew by 27% against 4.3% growth of the income of the remaining 99% (Saez, 2015). In every year from 2008 onwards, real hourly wages stayed behind hourly labour productivity and the share of wages fell both during the contraction and subsequent recovery (Dufour and Orhangazi, 2016). According to a recent study on income distribution since the onset of the global crisis, the real incomes of about two-thirds of households in 25 advanced economies were flat or fell between 2005 and 2014 and this proportion was over 80% in the US.…”

Culture, Context, or Conflict? Analyzing Union Attitudes in Six Rural Counties in Conservative Right‐to‐Work States

“…Scholars have identified three major factors contributing to this decline. First, some scholars argue that much of it is due to processes related to deindustrialization in which industrial occupations with high union density were replaced by nonunion jobs in services (Dufour and Orhangazi ; Freeman, Boxall, and Haynes ). Not only did this change lead to the decline of heavily unionized sectors, it also increased the labor market participation of traditionally nonunion workers, including women and immigrants (Altonji and Card ; Bronfenbrenner ; Bronfenbrenner and Warren ; Goldfield ).…”