The interest rate was raised by 0.50 percentage point towards the end of the year with a view to maintaining inflation at 2.5 per cent over time. New information suggests that the recovery in the Norwegian economy is continuing, but that capacity utilisation is probably somewhat lower than anticipated in autumn 2009. Combined with lower interest rates abroad, a stronger krone and lower wage growth suggest that the interest rate forecast should be revised down somewhat in relation to the October Report. Interest rates in Norway are low. The effect on private consumption of the substantial interest rate cuts in 2008 and 2009 has probably not been exhausted and high consumption growth is expected to continue in 2010. House prices have risen. The new guidelines for prudent residential mortgage lending issued by Finanstilsynet (the Financial Supervisory Authority of Norway) may curb household debt accumulation. Over time, household borrowing may nevertheless increase considerably and saving may fall. The aim of guarding against the risk  4  BIS Review 38/2010  of future imbalances, which may disturb activity and inflation somewhat further ahead, suggests that the interest rate should be gradually brought closer to a more normal level. On the other hand, a marked interest rate increase in Norway and a wider interest rate differential between Norway and other countries may entail a risk of a considerably strongerthan-projected krone, resulting in inflation that is too low. This will make it difficult to bring inflation up to target within a reasonable time horizon.
The world is changing quickly and it is only a couple of years since several of the big emerging markets, which now according to a GDP criterion should be given greater influence, were in need of support from the very countries that today by the same criterion would have to scale back their role. We do not know what the situation will be in five or ten years. Maybe, there are reasons to aim for more regional representation? A very difficult question – which I do not think can be ignored – is if the level of “democracy” or “governance” in individual countries’ should be a factor when determining countries influence in the IMF. Whatever the answer to this question is, it will have potential consequences for the legitimacy of the organisation. Finally, we should not be led to believe that a changed representation per se, resolves the problems of the IMF. There are a number of other things that could, and should, be done that may even play a more important role. Allow me to indicate a number of areas where more could be done, and where the prospect of progress is probably higher than in the QVR-field. I myself have positive experiences of a similar gradual process of reform within the framework of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). 1. Much has been done to increase transparency in various ways at the IMF. Greater openness is probably the most important way to develop the organisation’s analysis and surveillance activities.