Publications /

Permanent Output Losses From the Pandemic
October 21, 2021

In the World Economic Outlook, published October 12, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) slightly lowered its forecast for global economic growth this year to 5.9%, while maintaining a forecast of 4.9% for 2022. It also emphasized the “divergence” in the pace and extent of economic recovery in different countries.

Two factors are highlighted in explaining the divergence. First, there are the different paces and extent of vaccination in different countries, that is, the ‘Great Vaccination Divide’. The WEO report shows a positive correlation between vaccination rates and upward revisions in country growth projections since April. The second factor corresponds with national differences in the fiscal space available for recovery support via public policies.

The IMF referred to “lasting imprints” left during divergent recoveries, with emerging and developing economies suffering deeper medium-term damage than advanced countries, on average. Most countries are now forecast to have lower GDP in 2024 than projected in January 2020 before the pandemic. The exceptions are the United States and emerging countries in Eastern Europe, for which higher GDP than before is forecast (Figure 1).


The divergence in economic recoveries is also manifested in labor markets and in the levels of utilization of productive capacity. The IMF projects higher job losses relative to pre-pandemic trends through 2024 in emerging and developing economies.

It is necessary to distinguish, on the one hand, the permanent output loss resulting from the pandemic and, on the other, any possible consequences of the pandemic for future GDP trajectories. Comparing previously predicted and actual trajectories with what happened during the pandemic shows a definite loss. Even if one hypothetically supposes an exact return of the economy to the point where it would be according to the original trajectory, with a return to the growth rate prior to the pandemic, all the GDP not generated during the crisis would be permanently lost.

This is different from crises associated with industrial or financial cycles common in history because, in those cases, in general, some period of above normal or trend growth will have occurred previously. In the pandemic there has been only the loss side.

There is also a high probability that ‘scarring’ prevents a complete return to levels of GDP that were projected before the pandemic. In the case of a recovery in the form of an ‘inverted square root (Figure 2 – see Canuto (2020)), the permanent loss of GDP would include the differences between GDP levels projected before and after, even assuming a return to the potential growth rate prior to the pandemic.


As discussed previously, the pandemic is causing scarring in labor markets. Long-term unemployment leads to skills erosion. The quality and quantity of hours in human capital formation is also being negatively impacted.

The pandemic will leave other scars, as discussed by Diggle and Bartholomew (2021). Financial support from the public sector has made it possible for ‘zombie’ companies to survive—firms incapable of generating returns and meeting debt services in the ‘new normal’ conditions. Public support prevented the death of otherwise viable companies, but the side effect of maintaining zombies is, in turn, an impediment to the improved reallocation of resources.

Experiences with strong negative shocks also have persistent impacts on the beliefs and moods of companies and businesses, leading them to greater levels of risk aversion in financial and budgetary decisions. It is not by chance that, historically, savings go up during pandemics.

On the other hand, the pandemic has had a positive productivity shock in sectors where there was some business reluctance to accelerate digitization and automation, as revealed in some recent surveys of corporate managers. Certainly, the challenges in terms of the need to retrain the workforce have also increased.

The IMF WEO report included an upgrade to the medium-term scenario for the U.S. economy, which may be taken as including a favorable assessment of the effects of the Biden administration's fiscal program, for which the feasibility of political approval was certainly facilitated by the pandemic crisis. This arguably can be included among the ‘positive shocks’ from the pandemic.

The scars, with different depths in different countries, will limit the extent to which the recovery will bring economies closer to their pre-pandemic trajectories. The shorter the recovery, the greater the permanent loss of GDP arising from differences between projected GDP before and after. This is bad news in particular for emerging and developing economies that, according to the IMF report, are on the downside of the “divergence of recoveries”.

What about the growth trends after the pandemic, with scarring effects taken into account? Is there any reason to expect growth to change up or down as a lasting consequence of the pandemic?

Here, there is a danger that national economic policies will focus more on risk prevention and lead to a retreat from the productive integration across borders that marked globalization in the decades prior to the global financial crisis. This integration was already subject to pressure in the opposite direction before the pandemic. The primacy of efficiency and cost minimization could give way to security against the risk of shocks and supply chain resilience. The supply disruptions that have marked the current moment of recovery from the crisis could be used as a justification for this.

It remains to be seen how far the demarcation lines of what will be considered ‘strategic’ by different countries will be extended. But moving towards closing of markets tends to negatively affect the future evolution of productivity. And one cannot lose sight of the exuberant result that accompanied globalization in terms of global poverty reduction and less inequality between national per-capita incomes.

One must also consider as a possible positive consequence of the pandemic the strengthening—apparently the case in many countries—of domestic political support for the pursuit of sustainable and inclusive growth. For now, however, there are permanent losses of GDP.


The opinions expressed in this article belong to the author.


  • July 18, 2023
    Le secteur informel est une composante essentielle de l'économie marocaine, employant une large partie de la population, mais nuisant à la productivité, aux recettes fiscales de l’État et à la croissance économique à long terme. Sur la base de la définition adoptée dans cette étude et qui définit les travailleurs informels comme étant ceux qui ne sont pas couverts par les régimes contributifs de sécurité sociale de la Caisse nationale de sécurité sociale (CNSS) et d ...
  • October 7, 2022
    “The debate on the viability of industrial policy design based on the fragmentation of global value chains, from a cost optimization perspective, did not arise first in the wake of the Covid-19 crisis but was present long before. This industrial policy design was justified by the great development of logistics and transport across the world’s industrial clusters, which allowed just-in-time manufacturing to become the main adopted production model. However, the disruption of logistic ...
  • Authors
    Sous la direction de Larabi Jaïdi
    Muhammad Ba
    Marouane Ikira
    Pierre Jacquemot
    Brian Kelly Nyaga
    Leo Kemboi
    Moubarack Lo
    Mouhamadou Ly
    Solomon Muqay
    Dennis Njau
    Meriem Oudmane
    Kwame Owino
    Faith Pittet
    Amaye Sy
    September 29, 2022
    La succession des chocs pandémique, climatique et géopolitique a éprouvé les économies africaines. Les liens commerciaux et financiers avec le monde ne sont plus seulement considérés comme des moteurs de performance, mais aussi comme des sources potentielles de vulnérabilité. La défiance à l’égard de la mondialisation s’est accrue. Parce qu’elle est venue souligner la dépendance du continent, le dérèglement de ses rapports à la nature et sa vulnérabilité face aux tensions géopolitiq ...
  • From

    6:00 pm July 2022
    L’apparition de de la COVID-19 a engendré une crise sanitaire mondiale, qui s’est rapidement transformé à d’autres crises bouleversant le vécu des humains de par la planète. En ce qui concerne les marchés mondiaux, notamment du travail, les incertitudes ont fortement impacté les comportements des agents. Aussi, les mises sous restrictions, totales ou partielles, des facteurs de production ont eu leur incidence sur l’activité globale -via différents canaux -, y compris celle des acteurs du marché du travail. À court terme, la pandémie est synonyme de fortes perturbations pour les citoyens et les marchés du travail. Celles-là concernent les revenues et les dépenses des particuliers comme elles portent sur l’activité des entreprises et donc les dynamiques de création d’emploi et ...
  • June 10, 2022
    The latest IMF projections indicate that global growth will be 4.4% in 2022 after 5.9% in 2021. These projections make us very optimistic for the future, but they certainly cannot heal th ...
  • April 25, 2022
    Retrouvez en exclusivité l’interview de Abdelhak Bassou, Senior Fellow au Policy Center for the New South, qui se livre à Helmut Sorge, Columnist au Policy Center for the New South, au sujet des multi-disparités présentes en Afrique. Abdelhak Bassou est l’auteur du Chapitre 5 du rapport...
  • Authors
    Alessandro Minuto-Rizzo
    Bernardo Sorj
    Frannie Léautier
    Iskander Erzini Vernoit
    Kassie Freeman
    Nathalie Delapalme
    J. Peter Pham
    March 7, 2022
    The COVID-19 pandemic has had a huge impact on the global economy and has challenged the best minds to rethink how to design and implement an effective recovery. Countries in the wider Atlantic region have exhibited differential trajectories in traversing the pandemic. A number of countries in Europe succeeded in vaccinating most of their eligible populations, enabling life to return somewhat to normal. A smaller group of countries in Europe could manage infection rates even more ti ...
  • Authors
    February 3, 2022
    COVID-19 has ravaged nearly every country in the world, with the globalization of recent decades intensifying its spread. As of mid-2021, the world had spent $16.5 trillion—18% of global GDP—to fight the disease. And that amount does not even include the most important losses such as deaths, mental health effects, restrictions on human freedom, and other nonmonetary suffering. Nearly 90% of this spending was by developed economies, with the rest by emerging market and developing eco ...
  • Authors
    January 26, 2022
    COVID-19 has caused serious damage throughout the entire world. As of mid-2021, the global fiscal cost of COVID-19—excluding the most important consequences, such as human lives, mental health effects, restrictions of human freedom, and other non-pecuniary components, have amounted to at least $16.5 trillion, about 18% of world GDP (Dinh 2021). Financial support has varied across countries depending on income level, political willingness, and the extent of the pandemic in each econo ...