In any case, it is important to note that this assumption is subject to a high degree of uncertainty, which is reflected in a wider range of trend growth estimates, that goes from half a percentage point to one percentage point between the 2019 estimate and the current one. This partly reflects the fact that these estimates do not include the potential effects in either direction of the structural changes induced by the pandemic or by the political-institutional process underway. Potential GDP —which measures growth capacity over shorter terms, where full resource allocation is not achieved— is revised upward, despite the downward correction to trend growth. For the 2021-2023 period, potential growth is estimated at around 2.1 percent (around 1.7 percent in March). This reflects the greater adaptive capacity of the economy and the smaller scars that the pandemic would be leaving, which reduces the persistence of its negative effects on productivity and factor availability. All in all, in the medium term, potential GDP should converge to figures comparable to trend GDP. For the neutral MPR, the sum of estimates yields figures of the order of 0.5 percent in real terms. Consistent with the range of estimates and the uncertainty surrounding this calculation, the Board considers that the neutral MPR lies in a range between 3.25 and 3.75 percent in nominal terms, a 50 basis point decline in the bounds of the range estimated until March.
3  Reinhart, C. and K. Rogoff, 2009, “This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly”, Princeton University Press. 4  Gorton, G. and A. Metrick, 2009, “Securitized Banking and the Run on Repo”, NBER Working Paper 15223. 5  Reinhart, C. and K. Rogoff, 2009, “This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly”, Princeton University Press. 6  Roubini, N. and X. Sala-i-Martin, 1995, “A growth model of inflation, tax evasion, and financial repression”, Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 35(2), pp. 275–301  BIS Review 126/2010  5