Great Recession/Addendum

The World

 * {|class = "wikitable"

! !colspan = "3"| !colspan = "4"|2009 !colspan = "4"|2010 ! !align="center"| 2007 !align="center"| 2008 !align="center"| 2009

!align="center"|  Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4 !align="center"|   Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4
 * GDP (% change on previous period)
 * align="center"| 3.9
 * align="center"| 1.7
 * align="center"| -2.2
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * }
 * }

The financial crisis had an adverse effect upon most of the world's economies, but its greatest impact was on the high income countries (The United States, Canada Europe and Japan) with a collective GDP reduction in 2009 of 3.3 per cent. Next in severity were the downturns of the developing economies excluding China and India with a collective GDP reduction of 2.2 per cent, mainly as a result of the loss of capital inflows and of a collapse of world trade , and by the spring of 2009 most of  the world's economies were facing severe damage. There were large variations in impact, however. It had little effect on the South Asian economies,  the East Asian economies were less adversely affected by the crisis than other regions, and the impacts on the economies of China and India took the form only of significant growth rate reductions. The severest effects were upon the economies of the Baltic States, Iceland and Ireland.

The United States
The growth rate of American economy slowed sharply from around 3 per cent in 2006 to 2 per cent in 2007  and the economy continued to operate at below its trend rate of growth until the fourth quarter of 2009. Following the bursting of the house price bubble and the development of the subprime mortgage crisis in 2007, two and a half  million families   faced foreclosure in 2008, and the reductions in personal wealth resulting from the fall in  house prices were causing further reductions in demand. The financial crash of 2008, and the resulting credit crunch, caused  further declines in business activity, which added more pressure on the financial system  and three and a half million Americans lost their jobs in the course of 2008. Credit remained tight in 2009 with lenders  imposing strict standards for all types of loans and unemployment continued to rise throughout the year.

As the economy started to recover in late 2009, attention turned to the problem of reduction of restoring fiscal sustainability without endangering the recovery. The Federal budget deficit had risen sharply  under the operation of the economy's automatic stabilisers,  the Federal Government had  introduced measures of fiscal stimulus amounting to 5.6 per cent of GDP spread over the three years 2008 to 2010, and by 2010 the national debt had risen from its 2007 level of 62 percent of GDP to over 90 per cent

Canada

 * {|class = "wikitable"

! !colspan = "3"| !colspan = "4"|2009 !colspan = "4"|2010 ! !align="center"| 2007 !align="center"| 2008 !align="center"| 2009

!align="center"|  Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4 !align="center"|   Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4
 * GDP (% change on previous period)
 * align="center"| 2.7
 * align="center"| 0.5
 * align="center"| -2.6
 * align="center"| -1.8
 * align="center"| -0.9
 * align="center"| 0.2
 * align="center"| 1.2
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * Unemployment (% of labour force)
 * align="center"| 6.0
 * align="center"| 6.1
 * align="center"| 8.3
 * align="center"| 7.8
 * align="center"| 8.4
 * align="center"| 8.5
 * align="center"| 8.9
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * Consumer prices (% increase on the same period of the previous year)
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"| 2.4
 * align="center"| 0.3
 * align="center"| 1.4
 * align="center"| 0.1
 * align="center"| -0.8
 * align="center"| 1.0
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * }
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * }

Canada's economic growth began in the Autumn of 2007 as exports fell in response to the United States subprime mortgage crisis, and the downturn developed into a sharp contraction led by falling investment and household spending in the last quarter of 2008. The government introduced fiscal stimulus measures amounting to 4 per cent of GDP spread over the three years 2008-10, and a recovery started in the second half of 2009.

The United Kingdom

 * {|class = "wikitable"

! !colspan = "3"| !colspan = "4"|2009 !colspan = "4"|2010 ! !align="center"| 2007 !align="center"| 2008 !align="center"| 2009

!align="center"|  Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4 !align="center"|   Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4 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, 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,  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 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.
 * GDP (% change on previous period)
 * align="center"| 3.0
 * align="center"| 0.7
 * align="center"| -4.8
 * align="center"| -2.6
 * align="center"| -0.6
 * align="center"| -0.3
 * align="center"| 0.3
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * Unemployment (% of labour force)
 * align="center"| 5.3
 * align="center"| 5.2
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"| 7.7
 * align="center"| 7.7
 * align="center"| 7.8
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * Consumer prices (% increase on the same period of the previous year)
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"| 3.6
 * align="center"| 2.2
 * align="center"| 3.1
 * align="center"| 2.2
 * align="center"| 1.5
 * align="center"| 1.9
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * }
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * }

By 2010, the UK’s national debt had risen from under 50 percent of GDP to over 80 percent, 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. 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.

The Eurozone

 * {|class = "wikitable"

! !colspan = "3"| !colspan = "4"|2009 !colspan = "4"|2010 ! !align="center"| 2007 !align="center"| 2008 !align="center"| 2009

!align="center"|  Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4 !align="center"|   Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4
 * GDP (% change on previous period)
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"| 0.6
 * align="center"| -3.9
 * align="center"| -2.5
 * align="center"| -0.1
 * align="center"| 0.4
 * align="center"| 0.1
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * Unemployment (% of labour force)
 * align="center"| 7.5
 * align="center"| 7.5
 * align="center"| 9.4
 * align="center"| 8.8
 * align="center"| 9.3
 * align="center"| 9.6
 * align="center"| 9.9
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * Consumer prices (% increase on the same period of the previous year)
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"| 3.3
 * align="center"| 0.3
 * align="center"| 1.2
 * align="center"| 0
 * align="center"| -0.2
 * align="center"| 0.5
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * }
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * }

Germany

 * {|class = "wikitable"

! !colspan = "3"| !colspan = "4"|2009 !colspan = "4"|2010 ! !align="center"| 2007 !align="center"| 2008 !align="center"| 2009

!align="center"|  Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4 !align="center"|   Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4 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, 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.
 * GDP (% change on previous period)
 * align="center"| 2.5
 * align="center"| 1.3
 * align="center"| -5.0
 * align="center"| -3.5
 * align="center"| 0.4
 * align="center"| 0.7
 * align="center"| 0.0
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * Unemployment (% of labour force)
 * align="center"| 8.4
 * align="center"| 7.5
 * align="center"| 7.5
 * align="center"| 7.3
 * align="center"| 7.6
 * align="center"| 7.6
 * align="center"| 7.5
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * Consumer prices (% increase on the same period of the previous year)
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"| 2.6
 * align="center"| 0.4
 * align="center"| 1.0
 * align="center"| 0.0
 * align="center"| 0.1
 * align="center"| 0.4
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * }
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * }

France

 * {|class = "wikitable"

! !colspan = "3"| !colspan = "4"|2009 !colspan = "4"|2010 ! !align="center"| 2007 !align="center"| 2008 !align="center"| 2009

!align="center"|  Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4 !align="center"|   Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4
 * GDP (% change on previous period)
 * align="center"| 2.2
 * align="center"| 0.8
 * align="center"| -2.3
 * align="center"| -1.4
 * align="center"| 0.3
 * align="center"| 0.2
 * align="center"| 0.6
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * Unemployment (% of labour force)
 * align="center"| 8.3
 * align="center"| 7.9
 * align="center"| 9.4
 * align="center"| 8.9
 * align="center"| 9.3
 * align="center"| 9.6
 * align="center"| 10.0
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * Consumer prices (% increase on the same period of the previous year)
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"| 2.8
 * align="center"| 0.1
 * align="center"| 0.9
 * align="center"| -0.3
 * align="center"| -0.2
 * align="center"| 0.4
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * }
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * }

The government introduced fiscal stimulus measures amounting to 0.6 per cent of GDP spread over the two years 2009-10, 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.

Italy

 * {|class = "wikitable"

! !colspan = "3"| !colspan = "4"|2009 !colspan = "4"|2010 ! !align="center"| 2007 !align="center"| 2008 !align="center"| 2009

!align="center"|  Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4 !align="center"|   Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4
 * GDP (% change on previous period)
 * align="center"| 1.6
 * align="center"| -1.0
 * align="center"| -5.0
 * align="center"| -2.4
 * align="center"| -0.5
 * align="center"| 0.3
 * align="center"| -0.3
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * Unemployment (% of labour force)
 * align="center"| 6.2
 * align="center"| 6.8
 * align="center"| 7.8
 * align="center"| 7.4
 * align="center"| 7.5
 * align="center"| 7.8
 * align="center"| 8.3
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * Consumer prices (% increase on the same period of the previous year)
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"| 3.3
 * align="center"| 0.8
 * align="center"| 1.6
 * align="center"| 0.9
 * align="center"| 0.1
 * align="center"| 0.7
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * }
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * }

Iceland

 * {|class = "wikitable"

! !colspan = "3"| !colspan = "4"|2009 !colspan = "4"|2010 ! !align="center"| 2007 !align="center"| 2008 !align="center"| 2009

!align="center"|  Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4 !align="center"|   Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4 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, 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 A loan was obtained from the International Monetary Fund and recovery is expected during 2011. In November 2009 the Moodys credit rating agency downgraded Iceland's government bonds to its lowest investment grade.
 * GDP (% change on previous period)
 * align="center"| 5.6
 * align="center"| 1.7
 * align="center"| -7.0
 * align="center"| -4.2
 * align="center"| 1.2
 * align="center"| -7.2
 * align="center"| 3.3
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * Unemployment (% of labour force)
 * align="center"| 2.3
 * align="center"| 3.0
 * align="center"| 7.2
 * align="center"| 7.2
 * align="center"| 6.9
 * align="center"| 7.2
 * align="center"| 7.8
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * }
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * }

Ireland

 * {|class = "wikitable"

! !colspan = "3"| !colspan = "4"|2009 !colspan = "4"|2010 ! !align="center"| 2007 !align="center"| 2008 !align="center"| 2009

!align="center"|  Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4 !align="center"|   Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4 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. In an attempt to restore confidence, the Irish government undertook to guarantee loans to the banks. 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 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 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. Foreign investors became wary of the possibility  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+, 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. 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.
 * GDP (% change on previous period)
 * align="center"| 6.0
 * align="center"| -3.0
 * align="center"| -7.5
 * align="center"| -2.1
 * align="center"| -0.8
 * align="center"| 0.3
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * Unemployment (% of labour force)
 * align="center"| 4.6
 * align="center"| 6.0
 * align="center"| 11.8
 * align="center"| 10.3
 * align="center"| 11.9
 * align="center"| 12.2
 * align="center"| 13.0
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * }
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * }

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 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.

Russia

 * {|class = "wikitable"

! !colspan = "3"| !colspan = "4"|2009 !colspan = "4"|2010 ! !align="center"| 2007 !align="center"| 2008 !align="center"| 2009

!align="center"|  Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4 !align="center"|   Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4 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 , 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.
 * GDP (% change on previous period)
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"| 5.6
 * align="center"| -9.0
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * Unemployment(% of labour force)
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * }
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * }

The Baltic States
The the fastest-growing economies in the European Union in 2006 became its three fastest-contracting economies in 2009. Years of boom were followed by falls in GDP averaging 1.8 per cent in 2008 and  estimated to average 15.5 per cent in 2009 (Estonia 13 per cent, Latvia 16 per cent Lithuania 18 per cent). An International Monetary Fund report on Estonia noted that investment already started to slow in mid-2007, along with a bursting of the property bubble, when the two main banks tightened lending conditions. The collapse of global external financing and foreign trade in the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy aftermath exacerbated the downturn. Output fell by almost 16 per cent in the first nine months of 2009. Deflation and wage declines were projected to persist through 2010.

Greece

 * {|class = "wikitable"

! !colspan = "3"| !colspan = "4"|2009 !colspan = "4"|2010 ! !align="center"| 2007 !align="center"| 2008 !align="center"| 2009

!align="center"|  Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4 !align="center"|   Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4
 * GDP (% change on previous period)
 * align="center"| 4.5
 * align="center"| 2.0
 * align="center"| -1.1
 * align="center"| -1.0
 * align="center"| -0.3
 * align="center"| -0.5
 * align="center"| -0.8
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * Unemployment (% of labour force)
 * align="center"| 8.3
 * align="center"| 7.7
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"| 8.8
 * align="center"| 9.2
 * align="center"| 9.7
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * }
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * }

The country's national debt rose by about 25 per cent above its above-average pre-crisis level of 100 per cent of GDP.

Japan

 * {|class = "wikitable"

! !colspan = "3"| !colspan = "4"|2009 !colspan = "4"|2010 ! !align="center"| 2007 !align="center"| 2008 !align="center"| 2009

!align="center"|  Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4 !align="center"|   Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4 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. The government introduced fiscal stimulus measures amounting to 2 per cent of GDP. 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.
 * GDP (% change on previous period)
 * align="center"| 2.4
 * align="center"| -0.6
 * align="center"| -5.3
 * align="center"| -3.6
 * align="center"| 1.5
 * align="center"| -0.1
 * align="center"| 0.9
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * Unemployment (% of labour force)
 * align="center"| 3.9
 * align="center"| 4.0
 * align="center"| 5.1
 * align="center"| 4.3
 * align="center"| 5.1
 * align="center"| 5.4
 * align="center"| 5.2
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * Consumer prices (% increase on the same period of the previous year)
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"| 1.4
 * align="center"| -1.4
 * align="center"| -0.1
 * align="center"| -1.1
 * align="center"| -2.2
 * align="center"| -1.9
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * }
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * }

China

 * {|class = "wikitable"

! !colspan = "3"| !colspan = "4"|2009 !colspan = "4"|2010 ! !align="center"| 2007 !align="center"| 2008 !align="center"| 2009

!align="center"|  Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4 !align="center"|   Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4
 * GDP (% change on previous period)
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"| 9.6
 * align="center"| 8.7
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * }
 * }

In November 2008, the Chinese Government announced a fiscal stimulus amounting to 4.4 per cent of its GDP, in addition to which there was a massive increase in bank lending. The effect was partially to offset the effect of the collapse in world trade upon its export sales. Strong export growth resumed in the course of 2009 - rising to above pre-crisis levels in 2010. There were increasing signs in early 2010 of a developing boom in property prices.

India

 * {|class = "wikitable"

! !colspan = "3"| !colspan = "4"|2009 !colspan = "4"|2010 ! !align="center"| 2007 !align="center"| 2008 !align="center"| 2009

!align="center"|  Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4 !align="center"|   Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4
 * align="center"| GDP (% change on previous period)
 * align="center"| 9.0
 * align="center"| 6.3
 * align="center"| 5.8e
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * }
 * }

A reversal of India's capital inflows started in January 2008 through a massive disinvestment by foreign institutional investors, with a net  disinvestment of $13.3 billion from January 2008 to February 2009 following  a net investment of $17.7 billion during 2007. That was followed by a massive slowdown in external commercial borrowing by India’s companies, trade credit and banking inflows from April 2008 . There was a progressive reduction in manufacturing output in the course of 2009 following a fall in overseas demand for India's exports .

Australia

 * {|class = "wikitable"

! !colspan = "3"| !colspan = "4"|2009 !colspan = "4"|2010 ! !align="center"| 2007 !align="center"| 2008 !align="center"| 2009

!align="center"|  Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4 !align="center"|   Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4
 * GDP (% change on previous period)
 * align="center"| 4.2
 * align="center"| 2.3
 * align="center"| 0.8
 * align="center"| 0.8
 * align="center"| 0.7
 * align="center"| 0.3
 * align="center"| 0.9
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * Unemployment (% of labour force)
 * align="center"| 4.4
 * align="center"| 4.2
 * align="center"| 5.6
 * align="center"| 5.3
 * align="center"| 5.7
 * align="center"| 5.8
 * align="center"| 5.6
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * }
 * align="center"|
 * 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. In the course of 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 excluding China and India

 * {|class = "wikitable"

! !colspan = "3"| !colspan = "4"|2009 !colspan = "4"|2010 ! !align="center"| 2007 !align="center"| 2008 !align="center"| 2009

!align="center"|  Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4 !align="center"|   Q1 !align="center"|   Q2 !align="center"|   Q3 !align="center"|   Q4 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. Economists at the International Monetary Fund found that the worst affected of the developing countries had been those with highly leveraged domestic financial systems and rapid credit growth. Countries exporting more advanced manufacturing goods had suffered more than  those exporting food,  and  countries with pegged exchange rates had  fared less well than those with flexible exchange rates
 * align="center"| GDP (% change on previous period)
 * align="center"| 6.2
 * align="center"| 4.3
 * align="center"| -2.2
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * align="center"|
 * }
 * }