Our analysis identifies three key factors: first, there are differences in the goods component of the CPIEFE, which point to a lower transfer to local prices from the peso depreciation throughout 2018. This may be explained by the fact that during this period the variation of the peso/dollar parity responded to movements of the global value of the dollar, as opposed to past parity variations (e.g. in 2017) that responded to idiosyncratic shocks to Chile (figure 2). The difference in the pass-through coefficient of forex variations to inflation according to the origin of the former was widely documented in a box in the March 2016 Report and today we see it reflected in the recent behavior of inflation. Second, there are also differences that could be more linked to supply factors in some markets of products and services. One example is the increased competition in the car industry, as well as the emergence of lowcost alternatives in passenger air transport, as seen in the behavior of the CPIEFE for services. The same applies 2  to the increased competition in special offers of telecom packages mobile phone services. Some of these phenomena have been captured by the new CPI thanks to some of its methodological improvements (figure 3). Third, the labor market presents greater slack, resulting from the massive immigration of recent years. Last December, the INE published the new population projections that use information from the 2017 Census, which ratified the significant increase in the immigrant population beginning in 2015.
Similarly, those extending loans will find it more difficult to assess the real value of collateral security and the borrower’s wealth. This situation must be corrected sooner or later, and when bubbles burst the risk of debt crises and financial instability is high. We have seen examples of this in Norway and in other countries. If we allow imbalances to develop in the domestic economy, this may trigger major capital movements with wide fluctuations in the exchange rate and long-term rates. Distributional effects of monetary policy The distributional effects of changes in nominal interest rates figured prominently in discussions concerning interest rate policy in the 1970s. There is probably a basis for saying that the consideration of distributional effects was an important reason behind the low interest rate policy. However, as developments were to prove, this was not the right approach. The low interest rate policy contributed to increased disparity. People are affected in different ways by a change in interest rates. Households with considerable debt will, ceteris paribus, be adversely affected by an increase in interest rates because they must use a higher proportion of their income to service the debt. However, the increase in interest expenditure in  BIS Review 92/2000  8  relation to household income is about the same for all income groups. This is because households with high income generally have a higher level of debt.