The Riksbank has chosen to publish minutes of Executive Board meetings after an interval of 6–8 weeks; the minutes are to reflect the discussion and indicate how the members voted. The clearly independent status that has now been assigned to the Riksbank has much to do with this choice. The minutes make it easier for policy evaluators to follow the formation of monetary policy and assess the actions of Board members. This is a democratic interest. Moreover, the fact that the voting will be published probably increases the members’ motivation to form a personal opinion about the difficult matters that have to be considered. I also believe that access to the minutes can help people to understand the choices that have to be made in the formulation of monetary policy and demystify what the Riksbank is doing. It is arguments of this type that made my British colleague Mervyn King declare, with reference to the work of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, that ‘Divided we stand, united we fall’. I want to emphasise that these matters are by no means simple. It seems to me that a clear analytical framework, combined with a high degree of transparency, has provided a good foundation for Swedish monetary policy in recent years. But with an Executive Board consisting of six members, each of whom is in a position to voice an opinion on monetary policy, it is probable that from time to time the Riksbank will be criticised for being indistinct.
It means that all EU countries — and thus non-euro countries such as Sweden — are bound by the rules for fiscal policy and its surveillance after the move to Stage Three. Each country is to strive for budgetary positions close to balance or in surplus in the medium term. This is intended to allow the automatic stabilisers free play while keeping the government deficit inside the 3 per cent limit. In this way the Pact provides for some flexibility in fiscal policy, which may be particularly important when there is no recourse to exchange rate adjustments. If the budget deficit exceeds the 3 per cent limit, sanctions can ultimately be imposed on the country in question if the problems are not tackled. It is only in exceptional circumstances that this may not apply. A surveillance procedure has been established for monitoring developments; national stability programmes are to be presented at regular intervals, showing how the goals are to be fulfilled. This process is perhaps as important in practice as the threat of sanctions. The establishment of clear rules and sanctions is intended to support the forces in each country that favour a disciplined fiscal policy. The sanctions do not apply to non-euro countries and they submit convergence programmes instead of stability programmes. So what has happened so far? The assessment of convergence or stability programmes from all the EU countries this spring shows a mixed picture.