Your question is hard to answer for two reasons: first, there's a lack of evidence to say much with certainty about the ancient economy, second, terms like 'recession' and 'growth'' risk anachronism as they're very modern concepts which may not be applicable to societies so different to our own. While ancient societies certainly changed, (for example population growth) its problematic to draw from this conclusions about the economy.
As a means of exchange, money represents a third of the economy, the other two being production and consumption. However, ancient money's principle use was not as a means of exchange but rather for the state to pay its military. Roman currency experienced inflation and debasement, but these are clearly correlated to political pressures (regime change, military defeat) . For production, some historians point to evidence of expanding rural settlements in late Antique Egypt as evidence of economic growth. This is not necessarily the case however, and is based on a simplistic assumption that more people must equal higher productivity.
The modern concept of ‘the economy’ has no equivalent in the ancient world. It is a repurposing of an ancient Greek word ‘oikonomia’ which roughly translates to ‘management of the household’. Naturally, it appears exclusively in the writings of the literary elite and is a reflection of their worldview. It existed as a subset of philosophy, particularly ethics, and was concerned with the management of an autarkic, slaveholding household and agricultural estate. As such, oikonomia texts treat the sale of goods and labour with a degree of scorn. Its purpose was to support the welfare of the state (polis), which was essentially the collective body of the aristocracy, and the individuals pursuit of ‘the good (self-sufficient) life’. This worldview effects broader literary evidence, as sources tend to ignore the kind of information valued by economists, focusing instead on events, diplomacy, and war.
Moses Finley's Ancient Economy is the great landmark text in this field and focuses on the Greco-Roman world. Finley’s thesis proposes a ‘cellular model’ in which ancient society was fragmented into largely self sufficient agricultural units controlled by a small elite. This elite had few material incentives to engage in commerce and were culturally inclined not to. In such an environment commerce was severely limited. If the economy is ‘an enormous conglomeration of interdependent markets’ than there was no ancient economy. Material needs were met through localised autarky. To the extent that material exchanges took place, they were done largely through the activities of a state. In highly stratified societies such as this, the control of resources are institutionalised into relationships of patronage and dependence. The exchange of goods are mainly facilitated through these relationships, rather than commercial transactions, in an environment where the socio-political and economic spheres are intimately linked. One example he cites is wage levels in Greece and Roman, which remain stable throughout the period, suggesting an absence of market forces on labor rates. Since its publication evidence has grown for more trade and large scale, specialised manufacturing than Finley imagined. While the degree to which Roman society was commercialsed and monetised is a matter of debate, it should be understood Finley's basic model remains widely accepted.