Mr. Heikenstein discusses the Swedish financial crisis of the early 1990s Speech by the Deputy Governor of the Bank of Sweden, Mr. Lars Heikenstein, at a seminar arranged by the Swedish embassy held in Seoul, Korea on 15/7/98. Let me begin with a thank you to the organisers of this seminar. I am honoured to have the opportunity to share with you some experiences from the Swedish financial crisis in the early 1990s. 1. Introduction An IMF study from 1996 showed that in the past fifteen years, 132 of the Fund’s 182 member countries had experienced macroeconomic and/or financial crises. Today the figure is even higher. Crises are a recurring phenomenon. In spite of every effort to prevent them, I fear that crises will continue to occur. We should therefore use the opportunities to learn from each other, both in order to avoid making the same mistakes and to find the appropriate correctives sooner. Needless to say, there are no single “best solutions”. Crisis situations are always specific in some respects, not least with regard to their structural and political environment. Had they not been specific, they would probably never have occurred because they would have been “spotted” in advance. Having said this, however, there are a number of globally accepted “truths” about what constitutes a good response to crises. Discussions around crisis situations are usually divided into two parts: crisis prevention and crisis management. In this presentation I will be focusing on the latter.
It is important to realise that once the crisis has occurred, the losses cannot be hidden and must be dealt with in one way or another. In this respect Swedish institutions worked well. Party politics were clearly separated from business realities. And the politicians did a good job, realising that bygones were bygones, setting up a fair framework to sort the crisis out. From a political perspective it was important that the banks’ owners were not rescued. People at large had to take substantial cuts in living standards - at least temporarily. Letting the “big guys” go unhurt under these circumstances would have jeopardised the whole operation. 4. The macroeconomic policy mix for crisis management can differ. In our case, there was obviously not much room for fiscal stimulation of the economy. Considering the much lower BIS Review 65/1998  -7-  public debt, there could be more room in some Asian countries but the potential budget effects of the financial losses also need to be taken into account. Monetary policy has a difficult dual role: it has to strike a balance between stimulating the economy so as to ease the burden on the banks and on their borrowers and at the same time ensuring the capital inflows that are needed to rebuild the depleted foreign currency reserves. 5. On top of this - and perhaps the most important factor - there was political consensus. The government sought and received backing from the main opposition party.