That is why in its monetary policy strategy, the Committee has interpreted “high employment” to mean the highest level of employment consistent with price stability over time. This level may vary over time and is primarily determined by structural conditions, such as labour force composition, the tax and social security system and wage formation. If we had attempted to use monetary policy to keep employment over that level permanently, inflation could have accelerated rapidly. An even higher policy rate may then have been required at a later stage, which may in turn have increased the risk of an economic downturn. In the Norwegian wage formation model, the social partners put weight on employment and firms’ profitability in wage negotiations, which is also an assumption underlying our economic projections. Over time, the system of coordinated wage determination has likely contributed to greater real wage flexibility and to keeping unemployment low by international standards. Experience nevertheless shows that there is a clear tendency for wage growth to increase when the labour market is tight and competition for labour intensifies. Similarly, wage growth tends to edge lower when the unemployment-to-vacancy ratio is high. Monetary policy trade-offs in the event of a cost shock Let me now turn to how we are seeking, in the current high-inflation environment, to strike a balance between the aim of low and stable inflation and the aim of high and stable employment. Over the past year, the policy rate has been raised from a very low level.
In the model, the central bank therefore raises its policy rate to curb the rise in inflation and gradually bring it down. The tighter monetary stance, which in this model is represented by an increase in the real interest rate, results in a negative output gap. [10] The extent to which monetary policy should be tightened to achieve a reasonable trade-off depends on the impact of higher prices and costs on consumption and investment. In most New Keynesian models, a cost shock does not affect demand directly. This is because temporary disturbances have little impact on households’ permanent income and because households and firms can borrow and save freely in these models. In practice, however, many households have small financial buffers and limited borrowing capacity. A decline in purchasing power due to a higher interest rate and higher prices will compel these households to reduce consumption. In addition, higher costs can reduce firms’ profits and thereby business investment. Chart: Costs shock – monetary policy trade-offs These effects of a cost shock can be illustrated in a model with different types of households – a so-called TANK model. [11] The model assumes that there are two types of households. One group can spread the effect of a decline in real disposable income on consumption over time, that is to say they can smooth consumption. The other group, called hand-to-mouth households, spends all its disposable income in each period. The cost shock hits the hand-to-mouth households relatively hard, and aggregate demand falls.