This article argues that an important, yet overlooked, determinant of the government spending multiplier is the direction of the fiscal intervention. Regardless of whether we identify government spending shocks from (1) a narrative approach or (2) a timing restriction, we find that the contractionary multiplier—the multiplier associated with a negative shock to government spending—is above 1 and largest in times of economic slack. In contrast, the expansionary multiplier—the multiplier associated with a positive shock—is substantially below 1 regardless of the state of the cycle. These results help understand seemingly conflicting results in the literature. A simple theoretical model with incomplete financial markets and downward nominal wage rigidities can rationalize our findings.

While episodes of financial distress are followed by large and persistent drops in economic activity, structural time series analyses point to relatively mild and transitory effects of financial market disruptions. We argue that these seemingly contradictory findings are due to the asymmetric effects of financial shocks, which have been predicted theoretically but not taken into account empirically. We estimate a model designed to identify the (possibly asymmetric) effects of financial market disruptions, and we find that a favorable financial shock—an easing of financial conditions—has little effect on output, but an adverse shock has large and persistent effects. In a counterfactual exercise, we find that over two-thirds of the gap between current US GDP and its 207 precrisis trend was caused by the 2007–2008 financial shocks.