You have to make do with estimates, which in the nature of things are uncertain and therefore have to be interpreted with caution. Still, the available estimates do suggest that in Sweden the equilibrium level of unemployment rose in the early 1990s and is somewhere in the interval 4.5 to 7.5%, expressed in terms of registered unemployment.1 The OECD also concludes that the level has increased markedly in the 1990s and judges that in Sweden equilibrium unemployment is around 6%.2 Not everyone agrees, however, that equilibrium unemployment is markedly higher than before.3 But even though we cannot be certain about its exact level, an increase is indicated by the fact that 1  2 3  See e.g. Calmfors, L (1995), Will high unemployment in Sweden become persistent?, Swedish Economic Policy Review 2:1. Economic Surveys – Sweden 1999, OECD, Paris. See e.g. Åberg, R (1997), Är stigande jämviktsarbetslöshet huvudproblemet på arbetsmarknaden? (Is rising equilibrium unemployment the principle labour market problem? ), Ekonomisk Debatt 25:1. BIS Review 106/1999  4  otherwise the currently high unemployment would be acting as a strong restraint in wage formation. Instead, the wage level in Sweden is still rising somewhat faster than in our main competitor countries. Considering that the rate of registered unemployment is currently around 6% and thus inside the estimated interval for structural or equilibrium unemployment, this might suggest that the Swedish economy is relatively close to full capacity utilisation.
In its deseasonalized series, non-mining GDP fell by 0.8% from the previous quarter, its second consecutive quarterly decline. The performance of trade, which fell 2.8% in the quarter, stands out in this result. Entrepreneurial services were the exception, rising 1.1% in the period. With this, it continues with the growing trend that it has been showing for several quarters, explained by the outsourcing of activities. The October Imacec confirmed the downward trend of non-mining activity, with a seasonally adjusted 0.4% decline month-on-month (figure 5). On the demand side, in the third quarter, gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) performed significantly better than expected. This result was driven by investment in renewable energies and other particular sectors. The latter included the impact of engineering works associated with the terminal phases of mining projects and one-off factors such as bus imports. In any case, the outlook for investment remains weak. The latest survey by the Capital Goods Corporation points to declining investment amounts during the 2022-2025 period. At the same time, business expectations remain pessimistic. The slow dynamism of the housing sector also stands out. However, long-term interest rates and local uncertainty levels have fallen in recent months, which could be of some help for the future path of investment (figure 6). Private consumption continued to adjust in the third quarter. It is worth noting the new drop in durable goods, whose deseasonalized series fell 3.8% with respect to the previous quarter.