V ekonomiji ima debata o tem, ali imajo recesije “očiščevalni” učinek, že zelo dolg rep. Schumpeter je v 1940-ih razvil znano teorijo o kreativni destrukciji, nakar je “avstrijska šola” ekonomije razvila teorijo, da so periodični “poslovni cikli” oziroma krize koristne, ker počistijo gospodarstvo nekonkurenčnih subjektov, iz česar nato zraste močnejše in bolj konkurenčno gospodarstvo. Država zato v času krize ne bi smela posegati, ampak prepustiti gospodarstvo, da se samo očisti. S poseganjem zgolj zaseje klice naslednje krize.

V še svežem članku Foster, Grim in Haltiwanger (2014) analizirajo te “očiščevalne učinke” v ameriškem gospodarstvu in ugotavljajo, da je v prejšnjih krizah bilo veliko tega “očiščevanja”. Sedanja “Velika recesija” pa je drugačna, zanjo je značilno manj realokacije kot pred krizo (gospodarstvo se je bolj “očiščevalo” v času rasti kot v času sedanje krize), hkrati pa ima ta realokacija, ki se je zgodila, manjši pozitiven učinek na rast produktivnosti kot prejšnje krize. Foster et al nimajo odgovora na to, zakaj je ta kriza drugačna od prejšnjih, sumijo sicer na finančne omejitve, vendar empiričnega dokaza za to (še) nimajo.

Whether recessions are a period of productive winnowing or counterproductive destruction has been the subject of a long ongoing debate. Economists trace the genesis of the debate back to the Schumpeter’s (1939, 1942) discussion of creative destruction. The cleansing hypothesis is that recessions are times of accelerated productivity-enhancing reallocation because it is a relatively low cost time for reallocation. Alternative hypotheses highlight the potential distortions to reallocation dynamics in recessions. Such distortions could arise from many factors. For example, if credit markets are distorted in a recession, reallocation may be driven more by credit constraints and less by market fundamentals such as productivity, demand and costs. The close connection between the financial crisis and the Great Recession suggests this hypothesis might be especially relevant in the recent period.

…

In the first part of our empirical analysis, we find a significant change in the responsiveness of job creation and destruction to cyclical contractions in the Great Recession relative to prior recessions. In earlier cyclical downturns, periods of economic contraction exhibit a sharp increase in job destruction and mild decrease in job creation consistent with the earlier literature. However, in the Great Recession, job creation fell by as much or more than the increase in job destruction. In this respect, the Great Recession was not a time of increased reallocation (whether productivity enhancing or not).

…

Evidence shows this high pace of reallocation is closely linked to productivity. While these patterns hold on average, the extent to which the reallocation dynamics in recessions are “cleansing” is an open question. We find downturns prior to the Great Recession are periods of accelerated reallocation even more productivity enhancing than reallocation in normal times. In the Great Recession, we find the intensity of reallocation fell rather than rose and the reallocation that did occur was less productivity enhancing than in prior recessions.

Vir: Foster, Grim in Haltiwanger (2014), Reallocation in the Great Recession: Cleansing or Not?