I don’t want to reveal too much now, but there are a few points worth considering in this context. First of all is the importance of real-time settlement, which enhances efficacy and security. This has been a feature of payment intermediation in Iceland for a decade and a half, and it is where other countries are heading. It is therefore vital that we preserve that feature during the changes now taking place. Second, it is important to keep the cost of domestic payment intermediation down. New and more diverse solutions that, for example, work directly with core financial market infrastructure, such as bank deposits and the Icelandic Banks' Data Centre’s systems, could help in this regard. Third, it is important that it be impossible to stop domestic payment intermediation through some sort of foreign intervention. Fourth, there must be alternate routes in the system, in case anything goes wrong. This could call for some diversity in payment intermediation, using different types of technology. Electronic krónur could play a role in this. But the topic of electronic krónur gives rise to big questions that must be discussed — questions about the possibilities for the general public to use electronic claims against the Central Bank (and indirectly against the State) as a medium of payment instead of bank deposits, and questions about the repercussions this could have on the role and stability of the banking system. The discussion promises to be an interesting one, and it is just beginning.
those caused by fluctuations in economic activity. This applies both to the development of productivity and the labour supply. At the same time, distinguishing between processes that are lasting and those of a temporary nature is one of the most important aspects with regard to the discussion of a country's capacity for long-term growth. Let us then study the determining factors one by one. Signs of a better growth in productivity My third slide shows the development of labour productivity, measured as GDP per hour worked, together with an estimated trend (Figure 3). We see that productivity growth varies strongly, but also that it shows a tendency to increase over time, particularly during the 1990s. This is a marked difference compared with developments in the 1970s, when the trend was instead a downward one. During the 1980s the actual productivity growth levelled out at a low level and was often around 1 per cent or below - with the exception of a few individual years. During the 1990s, on the other hand, there was a rapid increase and productivity growth stabilised at a level above 2 per cent. We don't know exactly what was the driving force behind this development. But allow me nevertheless to indicate some factors that may have played an important role. The economic crisis at the beginning of the 1990s probably played a not so insignificant role in raising productivity growth during the first half of the 1990s.