One of the examples of this is the fact that we did not utilise the scope for rate cuts that - according to a stricter interpretation - deregulation and other supply factors had created during the last few years of the 1990s. The clearest example of how we attempted to convey that our inflation targeting policy was flexible rather than strict was the clarification of monetary policy that the Executive Board published in 1999. In that, we explained that it may be appropriate in some situations - e.g. in the event of large shocks and deviations from target - to refrain from bringing inflation back to target too quickly in order to mitigate the adverse consequences for output and employment.1 We expressed this in terms of there being reasons to occasionally depart from our simple policy rule - that the repo rate is normally raised if inflation one to two years ahead is forecast to be above 2 per cent, and vice versa if inflation is forecast to undershoot the target. Explicit framework as basis The strategy that we in Sweden have chosen for dealing with the “flexibility problem” could, in simplified terms, be described as that we, when we have found it necessary, have in various ways modified and adapted a framework - mainly represented by an explicit symmetric target, regular publication of detailed decision-support data including forecasts, and a simple policy rule for how the repo rate is normally adjusted against the background of the forecasts.
Understanding and Trusting Central Banks  Even if the empirical literature is sparse, the great leaps forward in central bank openness over recent years would be expected to have earned them a transparency dividend among the harder-to-reach general public. That dividend might take the form of improved trust in central banks by the public and an improved understanding of their functioning. There is disappointingly little evidence of either. Trust in institutions generally has taken a body-blow over the past few years. The Edelman global survey suggests that public trust in businesses, government, NGOs and the media has fallen sharply. In 2016, only around half of the general public trusted these bodies. In the UK, fewer than 30% of the population trusted these institutions in the latest survey, down from over 40% a few years ago (Chart 10). The source of dwindling trust is itself revealing. It reflects a widening gap between trust in institutions among the elites (which has held firm) and among the general public (where it has fallen). This trust gap between elites and the general public averages 15 percentage points globally, having been around 9 percentage points as recently as 2012. In the UK and US, this gap is around 20 percentage points. 41  What is true of institutions appears to be true too of the economics profession. A recent poll by YouGov in the UK asked the general public how much they trusted various professions.