In any event, as the author points out, what is true is that the shift to protectionist-style policies – commercially and geopolitically – threatens to break the multilateral global governance arrangements in force. Paradoxically, the United States had led these arrangements over recent decades. Now, there is a consequent danger for global prosperity. The redistribution of power among a growing number of players entails the 1  replacement of the multilateral international cooperation arrangements with a new, more fragmented, decentralised and informal system as regards decision-making, in which bilateral and regional solutions trump multilateral agreements. Another characteristic feature of globalisation recently has been the onrush of the digital revolution and the roll-out of new communication and information technologies. These are driving radical changes in the economy, in society, in how we understand labour relations and in investment and consumption decisions. As the author indicates in the book, we are yet to fully discern the possibilities that artificial intelligence, robotisation and quantum computing can offer in the different facets of our lives. Professor Ontiveros also emphasises the risks and threats the application of these new technologies entails, e.g. the control of individuals, the invasion of privacy, the concentration of market power in the Big Tech companies, inequality and the exclusion of those who fail to adapt. Adding to globalisation and technical change is the demographic challenge. This poses fundamental challenges to growth, productivity and the sustainability of public finances in numerous economies.
This is what the Riksbank began doing with effect from the first Monetary Policy Report published this year. I will talk about this a little more in a moment. Let me take up a final argument in favour of transparency that I believe should not be underestimated. It is that by being open and clear towards the outside world we also become better in our analysis within the walls of the Riksbank. As transparency makes it easier to evaluate how well monetary policy functions, it quite simply increases the incentives for us to do a good job. The objections are not convincing However, not everyone is agreed that transparency is a general blessing. Academic research shows both advantages and disadvantages with transparency. A theoretical result from this research that has received much attention is that more public information from central banks and other authorities can in some cases be a negative element 2 . However, this result is based on the public information being of low quality. If the economic agents attach greater importance to poor public information than to their own better private information, the economy as a whole may suffer losses. However, this assumes that the public information is much poorer than the agents’ own information – an assumption that is hardly true in practice 3 . A more reasonable assumption, in any case with regard to central banks and monetary policy, is that public information is not poorer than the assessments made by private agents.