Instead, I want to pose this question: Supposing that all countries had free capital movements, freely floating exchange rates, and first-rate macroeconomic policies aimed at internal balance, would everything then be fine, at both the national and global level? I think there are strong indications that it would not be. There are a few reasons for this. First of them is the tendency of exchange rates to move away from equilibrium values for extended periods, with sharp corrections at the end of the process and with excess volatility throughout. The research on this phenomenon is still ongoing, but there are strong indications a number of factors suggest that the process is related at least partly to how asset markets function and how expectations are formed, and would not disappear even if macroeconomic policies were perfect. There will be net capital flows associated with this process, as well as swings in current accounts and effects on domestic financial systems that can ultimately lead to serious financial instability. In a small, open, and increasingly financially integrated economy, the process runs as follows: Domestic interest rates at the longer end of the maturity spectrum tend to become more closely correlated with the global rate, or the rate of the largest trading partner, and less correlated with the domestic policy rate. This means that monetary transmission tends to go increasingly through the exchange rate channel, which is only a problem, however, if the exchange rate behaves badly. Unfortunately, there is copious evidence to suggest that it is a problem.
The banking system expanded very rapidly in just five years, from a combined balance sheet of less than 2 times GDP (at the end of 2003) to almost 10 times GDP (in mid-2008). Most of this expansion was cross-border, and a lot of it had very little to do with Iceland, as both financing and investment took place abroad. A number of domestic mistakes were made throughout the process, and I do not have time to go into them here, but the expansion of the banks was greatly facilitated by Iceland’s membership in the European Economic Area (EEA), as the EEA Agreement provides a legal and regulatory framework based on European Union Directives, including free movement of capital and provision of financial services. The underlying principles are those of home licencing for operations anywhere in the EEA and of a level playing field for competition, where size and location supposedly do not matter. This European “Passport” enabled the Icelandic banks to operate throughout the EEA, including through branches in other EEA countries. We now know that there are deep flaws in this framework and that these flaws are important elements in the current euro area crisis. A key issue here is the contradiction between, the European passport rights on the one hand and, on the other hand, national supervision, national deposit insurance and national crisis management and resolution regimes. This is what recent proposals of a banking union are supposed to deal with.