In the background memorandum published in conjunction with the decision to abolish, the Riksbank argued that the interval had become obsolete since target deviations greater than 1 percentage point had become a natural part of flexible inflation targeting and that the credibility of the inflation target was not questioned even when inflation was outside the tolerance interval. 25 In retrospect, it is reasonable to ask whether the problem was not just the fact that the interval chosen was poorly adapted. Despite this, the idea as such of an interval around the target does not necessarily have to be a bad one. A better adapted interval may bring with it the advantages envisaged in the first place. It would signal that monetary policy is being conducted amidst considerable uncertainty and that the Riksbank is unable to fine-tune the economy and inflation. This is something that is good to remind people of on a more or less continual basis. In the same way as there may be reason to discuss a change of target variable, there may, in light of this, be cause to consider whether a tolerance interval should be reintroduced. I find it difficult, however, to see how an interval could normally change the practical prerequisites for monetary policy very much. The Riksbank has not had any rigid fixation with pinning the inflation target at exactly 2 per cent at all times, but an explicit target is nevertheless necessary as a guide to monetary policy and inflation expectations.
The slow and uneven vaccine rollout, even in some advanced economies, and its very limited availability in the LICs are matters of serious concern. Enabling global access to effective and affordable vaccines is a global responsibility, and an ethical and moral issue. We support the Managing Director’s Global Policy Agenda (GPA) and its wellplaced focus on creating conditions for a safe exit from the crisis followed by a sustained, strong and inclusive global economic recovery. We welcome the GPA’s recognition of difficult challenges facing many developing countries in pursuing their development and social objectives, while facing severe financing constraint and high debt. We further welcome the increasing IMF emphasis on middleincome countries as many face stalled growth and large financing needs in tighter market conditions. Our constituency is a heterogeneous group of countries and a mix of fragile and conflict-affected states, middle-income and frontier economies, and oil exporting countries. The crisis has severely impacted all countries of our constituency. Our authorities reacted swiftly to the crisis and implemented measures to alleviate its impact on lives and livelihoods, with some of our members benefitting from Fund emergency and/or Upper Credit Tranche (UCT) facilities. The economic recovery is gradually taking shape in our constituency, but at varying pace and degrees. The rebound of international oil prices provided welcome relief to oil exporters in our constituency, but financing pressures continue to persist, and economic diversification challenges remain.