In work at the Riksbank on monitoring prices in the Swedish economy, we could not fail to notice some positive changes in competitive conditions and pricing in recent years, as well as some more negative patterns that seem to be persisting. BIS Review 47/1998  -4Let me take the positive aspects first. One is the favourable price trend for imported goods in recent years. This is particularly notable in that for much of this period the exchange rate has been comparatively weak, which by itself should push import prices up. A favourable price trend has also been observed for food products, for example; this seems to be a consequence, at least in part, of Sweden’s membership of the European Union. Today, moreover, there are many indications that the combination of European monetary union and increased IT-based trade, for instance, will make competition even stronger. There is a general difference between the development of administered prices and market prices for goods and services. The administered prices have risen faster. This may be a result of increased fee setting in the public sector in recent years, both in connection with structural moves away from tax financing and to fill existing “holes” in public finances. Then there is the classic explanation that it is not so easy to raise productivity growth in some parts of the services sector. This no doubt applies in particular to a number of the services that are mainly provided under public auspices, such as medical care and care of the aged.
The deterioration was particularly significant in countries in which: (1) pre-crisis growth had been of an unsustainable and unbalanced nature – typically as a result of an over-reliance on the expansion of private credit and the contributions of housing-related sectors (notably construction and housing finance) – and (2) in which governments had failed to take advantage of favourable developments in the years of booming growth in order to consolidate their public finances. Over time, concerns about the size of government deficits and soaring debt-to-GDP ratios – combined with uncertainty about the ability of governments to design and implement consolidation plans in the context of reduced potential growth and massive implicit liabilities towards the financial sector – developed into uncertainty about the sustainability of government debt. Although the initial problems primarily concerned the Greek government debt market, contagion and spillover effects meant that the crisis quickly spread to the sovereign debt of other so-called “peripheral” countries and other market segments. In particular, financial markets turned their attention to the solvency of some “peripheral” economies that were perceived to have been hit particularly hard by the crisis because of long-standing structural and institutional weaknesses. The deterioration of public finances in some euro area member States has impacted negatively on investors’ confidence in government bonds issued by these countries, and thus led to further turbulences in the financial markets. This is also reflected in the sharp increase in the yields on the government bonds issued by those countries.