A stable financial system features solid cushions that reduce the risk of problems spreading from one institution or market to other institutions or markets, or across borders. This risk constitutes a systemic risk, i.e. the risk of failure of the financial system. 1  BIS Review 124/1999  Disturbances that may develop into a systemic risk can be transmitted through financial institutions and financial markets. Stable institutions are solid institutions in which there is general confidence, whereas stable markets are markets where there are no “excessive” price variations. The banks are in a special position. They transform short-term deposits into long-term loans. They are responsible for payment settlements, and bank deposits serve as a means of payment. The volume of amounts outstanding in the interbank market is sizeable. As a result, problems in one bank may rapidly spread to other banks. The financial strength of banks is thus important for financial stability. The more capital a bank has the larger the losses it can absorb. The risk of contagion is thus reduced. A bank’s capital adequacy ratio is not the only variable that must be taken into account. A bank’s earnings provide an indication of the bank’s future financial position. Another important factor is the size of a bank’s loss provisions. Financial unrest spreads through payment and settlement systems. These systems can also be at the origin of risk. This occurs when banks credit customers before they have received settlement from the payer bank.
Mark Twain is supposed to have once said: “I’m all for progress; it’s change I don’t like.” However, change lies in the nature of market liberalism, which neither can nor should be stationary. The structural changes that come in the wake of globalisation mean that less efficient production is replaced by more efficient production, and that sectors that do not hold up in competition are replaced by sectors where the country has comparative advantages, that is to say, is relatively better than its competitors. Structural changes thus consist of two parts: closing down (or moving out) and new establishment of businesses. The Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter called this creative destruction; old jobs and technologies disappear and new, more productive jobs arise as technology develops and production becomes more specialised. The major challenge in future, in both Sweden and other industrialised nations, will therefore be to create dynamic conditions in which new jobs can arise as the old ones disappear due to rationalisation or are moved abroad. Studies regarding some industrial nations indicate that many jobs lost during the most recent economic slowdown have not yet been replaced by new jobs in the same branch when economic activity picked up again; instead productivity has been higher. However, employment has continued to increase in other sectors, which appears to increase the number of jobs regardless of economic activity. The fact that employees have to change sector leads to greater friction unemployment arising.