As a background to my comments on the topic of this panel, “Where do central banks go from here?”, let me note that, as the world economy recovers from the recent financial crisis and the Great Recession that followed, a debate is underway regarding the causes of the crisis and how to reduce the risk of future crises. The role of monetary policy and its relation to financial stability are also under debate. Some blame the Federal Reserve, saying that its monetary policy was too expansionary after 2001 and that this laid the foundations for the crisis. The lesson to be drawn, they argue is that there is a need to modify the framework of flexible inflation targeting and give a greater role to financial-stability considerations. In my view, the crisis was largely caused by factors that had very little to do with monetary policy. Instead, it was mainly caused by regulatory and supervisory failures in combination with some special circumstances, such as low real interest rates around the world and housing policy in the United States. Neither do I share the view that there is a need to fundamentally modify the framework of flexible inflation targeting. Ultimately, my main conclusion for monetary policy is that flexible inflation targeting – applied in the right way and in particular using all the information about financial conditions that is relevant for the forecast of inflation and resource utilisation at any horizon – remains the best-practice monetary policy before, during, and after the financial crisis.
However, the fact that monetary policy is not just directed towards stabilising inflation, but also towards stabilising resource utilisation has, in the absence of quantitative measures of stability in these variables, made it difficult to measure and evaluate target fulfilment in this stability dimension. This makes it difficult to decide which policy-rate path best stabilizes both inflation and resource utilization. My suggestion is to use mean squared gaps for the inflation forecast and for the resourceutilization forecast as measures of the stability of inflation and resource utilization. 3 Figure 1 provides an example, using graphs from Norges Bank’s Inflation Report of June 2005. Figure 1 Monetary policy with mean squared gaps (Norges Bank, June 2005)  In figure 1, the top left panel shows three alternative policy-rate paths, the main path chosen by Norges Bank at the time and two alternative paths, a lower and a higher path. The top right panel shows the corresponding forecast of inflation according to the index CPI-ATE, the consumer price index adjusted for tax changes and excluding energy products. The bottom right panel shows the corresponding forecasts of the output gap, the gap between output and potential output. These three panels are shown in the June 2005 Inflation Report. We see that there is a tradeoff between stabilizing inflation and resource utilization, measured as the output gap. The lower (higher) policy-rate path stabilizes inflation better (worse) around the  3  See Svensson (2010a, c) for details.