According to the Central Bank’s forecast from February, GDP growth will be robust in 2016 and above its historical average for the two years thereafter. This certainly entails an increase in the positive output gap this year, but that tension will subside as the forecast horizon progresses, owing in part to a tighter monetary stance. Inflation will also rise with a larger positive output gap and reduced deflationary pressures from abroad as the year progresses, but monetary policy will counteract it. According to the forecast, inflation will peak at just over 4% in 2017 and then taper off over the remainder of the forecast horizon. Unlike in many previous forecasts, the strong current account surplus will persist for the entire forecast period, which extends until 2018, in part because national saving will remain above the historical average. In this context, we must bear in mind that things can change quite suddenly. It is also worth noting that numerical economic forecasts, by their very nature, have a tendency to be much more stable than historical reality. In the recent past, we have reaped the benefits of developments abroad, but we do not know how long this will last, and tailwinds could turn into headwinds. History also tells us that we have a tendency to make economic policy mistakes during booms and mistake temporary positive shocks for permanent improvements. If history repeats itself, domestic demand and inflation could increase more than is assumed in the forecast.
The assumption underlying both reports was that the Central Bank’s key objective would continue to be price stability, as is mandated by law, and that the exchange rate of the króna would remain flexible, although it would not need to be entirely free-floating. I will not explain the grounds for these assumptions here, as they have been discussed widely, except to point out that it is unrealistic to entrust monetary policy with objectives other than those it has the chance to fulfil using the available instruments, and that adopting a fixed exchange rate would eliminate the advantages of an independent currency and independent monetary policy without eliminating the disadvantages. Therefore, policy formation lies in finding a framework that can work under the above-described conditions. There were a number of drawbacks to Iceland’s pre-crisis monetary policy framework. A major flaw was the lack of an adequate response to the excessive capital inflows that contributed to credit and asset price bubbles and domestic residents’ significant foreign exchange risk, which was to a large extent unhedged. Furthermore, monetary and fiscal policy were not well enough aligned, and the same can be said of other Government decisions that affected demand. The burden on monetary policy was therefore greater than it would have been otherwise, which further stimulated capital inflows. This, together with strong demand, pushed the real exchange rate higher than it would have been otherwise and exacerbated macroeconomic imbalances, as could be seen most clearly in a sizeable current account deficit.