The optimal mix depends on the level of development of the financial market, but a more active role has to be played by the authorities to achieve the public policy objectives of retail payment reforms. 4.3  Policy elements  4.3.1 Central banks to play a catalytic role: Central banks should be at the centre, take the leadership and coordinate the development process as other stakeholders tend to have vested interests. While it is important to enhance oversight and supervisory functions by the central banks and ensure that governance arrangements for infrastructure and service providers are in place, it is also necessary to ensure that such arrangements do not lead to unnecessary restrictions on competition and innovation. 4.3.2 Stakeholder participation: It is essential that central banks engage in effective participation and secure cooperation from all stakeholders in the payment systems, through establishing National Payment Councils (NPC) or National Payment Committees/Advisory Councils etc. India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and some others have already established NPCs and they are the highest level policy making authorities for development of national payment systems. Banks have a good opportunity to give their inputs at these meetings, especially on operational matters. 4.3.3 Declare public policy objectives of retail payment system development: The undeclared and unsaid public policy objectives have been a contributory factor for ad hoc retail payment system developments in the past.
The risks he discusses are mainly linked to central banks that buy assets other than government bonds. The more the central bank involves itself in risk and capital allocation in the economy, the greater the risk of it being exposed to political pressure with respect to how it should conduct its policy. And more generally, the larger the central bank’s balance sheet, the greater the risk of politicians wishing to utilise the resources in a specific way. Plosser’s arguments are important, but they are not particularly applicable to the Riksbank’s current situation. The Riksbank has only purchased government bonds, and we have spread our purchases fairly evenly on the outstanding bond stock in order to affect the general level of interest rates rather than specific bond prices. And despite the Riksbank’s balance sheet having grown rapidly in recent years, it is significantly smaller in relation to GDP than in many other countries. As far as the Riksbank is concerned, I consider the financial risks to be more problematic. The large bond portfolio means that the interest rate risk on the balance sheet has increased. The bonds we have purchased have an average maturity of 5 years, but are funded with Riksbank certificates with a maturity of one week. If the interest rate rises, the funding costs will therefore increase while the return on the bonds already purchases remains unchanged. In addition, the expected return on the Riksbank’s bond portfolio is low.