Jan F Qvigstad: On making good decisions
Speech by Mr Jan F Qvigstad, Deputy Governor of the Norges Bank (Central Bank of
Norway), at the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, Oslo, 9 November 2010.
The text below may differ from the actual presentation. This speech does not contain assessments of the
economic situation or current interest rate setting.
* * *
I would like to thank Øyvind Eitrheim, Amund Holmsen, Marie Norum Lerbak, Kjetil Olsen and Øistein Røisland for
their valuable assistance in preparing this lecture. I would also like to thank Helle Snellingen for her contribution to
the translation of the Norwegian text into English.
1. Introduction
When Hans Rasmus Astrup was appointed minister in Johan Sverdrup's government in
1885, he sold his business in Stockholm and moved back to Norway. As I mentioned in my
lecture here two years ago1, Astrup was at the time perhaps Norway's wealthiest man. On
his return to Norway, he needed a place to live, bought a plot of land here in Drammensveien
and decided to build the house we are sitting in now.
The question might be raised whether it was a good decision to build such a large and
ostentatious house. But Astrup was not just looking for a home for his family. The house was
also intended to provide a venue for interdisciplinary and political discussions.2
We all make many decisions every single day, some more important than others. And we all
presumably want these decisions to be good ones. But how can we ensure that a decision is
good? This is a weighty and far-reaching question. If I am to make meaningful contribution, I
will need to limit my focus.
Norges Bank makes many decisions. The monetary policy decisions every six weeks are
awaited with particular interest. Based on my experience from interest rate decision-making, I
will focus on how the quality of a decision can be assessed. Even though I am speaking from
my own perspective, I hope I am able to touch on more general issues that are of wider
relevance.
2. Independence provides a sound framework for interest rate decisions
Most countries have now delegated the task of ensuring price stability to the central bank.
This is also the case in Norway. The government has set an inflation target for monetary
policy and delegated the operational conduct of monetary policy to Norges Bank.3
This framework can be regarded as an institutional solution to the problem of avoiding major
mistakes. An independent central bank is better able to give priority to long-term interests
over short-term gains.
That it is tempting, but dangerous, for a government to focus on short-term gains was a
lesson Greek politicians learned this spring. Government spending exceeded revenues over
a long period. Accounts and official statistics were fudged. Politicians may have hoped to
secure a quick admission for Greece into the euro area, with the advantages this would
bring. They may have also believed that high government spending and low taxes might help
their re-election prospects. Instead, they now have to steer the country through harsh
reforms and substantial cuts.4
The Norwegian economist Finn Kydland received the Nobel Prize for economics in 2004 for
having shown that on the whole, monetary policy decisions are better if policymakers
delegate interest rate setting to an independent central bank under a clear mandate.5 As a
central bank we must adhere to the mandate we have been given and be able to set the key
rate based on a professional assessment.6 This is a system that lays a solid foundation for
making good decisions.
3. We make decisions under uncertainty
Independence alone does not guarantee good decisions. Even if an independent central
bank is better positioned to avoid having short-term expediency and changing preferences
dictate interest rate policy, its decisions must be made under considerable uncertainty.
We have imperfect knowledge about the state of the economy, nor are we absolutely certain
of how economic relationships function. Alan Greenspan, the former Chairman of the US
Federal Reserve, described this in the following words:
"Uncertainty is not just an important feature of the monetary policy landscape; it is
7
the defining characteristic of that landscape"
Sometimes, the nature of the uncertainty allows one to draw inferences regarding the
probabilities of different outcomes. It is possible, in other words, to judge the risks one is
facing, at least to a certain degree. In that case, decisions can be made on the basis of a
calculated risk, which is an approach underlying theories of equity investment,8 for example.
But the financial crisis reminded us that keeping the overall risk picture in view may be
difficult. When Queen Elizabeth visited the London School of Economics in autumn 2008 she
asked why no one had foreseen the crisis. The British Academy Forum replied to the Queen
in a letter six months later. Included in the letter was the following:
4
The euro area operates under rules intended in principle to facilitate long-term policy choices. The Maastricht
criteria require participating states to keep fiscal deficits and public debt within defined limits. Recent history
has shown that this framework must be reinforced through sanctions. Decision-makers need an incentive to
comply with the rules in practice.
5
See Finn E. Kydland and Edward C. Prescott (1977): "Rules Rather than Discretion: The Inconsistency of
Optimal Plans", Journal of Political Economy, 85, no. 3, pp. 473-491.
6
See Arne Kloster and Kristin Solberg-Johansen (2006): "Forecasting in Norges Bank", Economic Bulletin,
3/2006, Jarle Bergo "Interest rate projections in theory and practice" (speech at the Foreign Exchange
Seminar of Norwegian Economists on 26 January 2007) and Svein Gjedrem "Inflation targeting - some theory
with main focus on practice" (speech at the Centre of Monetary Economics/Norwegian School of Management
on 8 June 2004.
7
In Alan Greenspan's opening remarks to the Jackson Hole symposium in 2003, available at:
http://www.bis.org/review/r030905a.pdf.
8
See for example William F. Sharpe (1964): "Capital Asset Prices: A Theory of Market Equilibrium under
Conditions of Risk", Journal of Finance, vol. XIX, no. 3 and Harry M. Markowitz (1952): "Portfolio selection",
Journal of Finance, vol. XII, no. 1.
BIS Review 147/2010
"One of our major banks, now mainly in public ownership, reputedly had 4000 risk
managers. But the difficulty was seeing the risk to the system as a whole rather
than to any specific financial instrument or loan (...) They frequently lost sight of
the bigger picture."9
In setting the key policy rate, too, we often face more fundamental uncertainty, where it is
very difficult to calculate probabilities for possible scenarios.10 In decision situations like
these, it may be appropriate to establish routines that can guard against especially severe
consequences.
Many might believe that since Norges Bank's key policy rate is set every six weeks, there
might be scope for correction should it transpire that economic developments were not as
expected. To a certain extent this is the case. But since it takes time for the effects of our
decisions to come into evidence, our scope for correction is in reality rather narrow. Setting
the key rate at an inappropriate level for a period of time, may have serious consequences
for the Norwegian economy.
Without complete and reliable information at our disposal, it is easy to err. A number of
studies have shown that in such situations humans often resort to more or less qualified
guesses, gut feelings or rules of thumb.
Allow me to offer an example involving distance judgement. Ordinarily, the closer an object
is, the more clearly we will see it. Thus, if they see an object clearly, most people will
perceive it as nearby. But when the astronauts landed on the moon, they had great difficulty
judging distances, nearly always underestimating them. The reason was that visibility was
unusually clear and they were in a landscape without known references.11
One approach to uncertainty is to do what others do in similar circumstances. The UK
decided to abandon the gold standard in summer 1931. In practice this meant a devaluation
of the pound sterling against the US dollar. A few days later, Norway and the other Nordic
countries decided to follow suit. History has shown that the countries that devalued in 1931
weathered the depression better than those which did not.12 Following the British lead was a
decision that produced a good outcome.
In 1949 there was a new sterling devaluation, this time 30 per cent against the US dollar. As
in 1931, the Norwegian government announced that the value of the krone would be lowered
correspondingly13. But unlike at that time, the level of activity in Norway was now high, and
9
The letter from the British Academy to the Queen is available at:
http://media.ft.com/cms/3e3b6ca8-7a08-11de-b86f-00144feabdc0.pdf.
10
See Frank H. Knight (1921): Risk, uncertainty, and profit, Hart, Schaffner & Marx; Houghton Mifflin Co, Boston.
11
See the article "Fotspor med historie" [Footsteps with history], Aftenposten, 8 July 1989 and Rod Pyle (2007):
Destination Moon: The Apollo Missions in the Astronauts' Own Words, Harper Paperbacks. For further
discussion and additional examples, see Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin and Daniel Kahneman (2002):
Heuristics and biases. The psychology of intuitive judgment, Cambridge University Press.
12
See the discussion in Tore Jørgen Hanisch, Espen Søilen and Gunhild Ecklund (1999): Norsk økonomisk
politikk i det 20. århundre. Verdivalg i en åpen
økonomi, [Norwegian economic history in the 20th century.
Ethical choices in an open economy] Høyskoleforlaget, Kristiansand.
13
The government had discussed how Norway should respond to a British devaluation. However, they had not
reached a final conclusion and the government was split. The Minister of Trade and Industry at the time, Erik
Brofoss, advocated following UK actions to the full, and was supported in this view by Gunnar Jahn, the
director of Norges Bank. They feared a substantial loss of competitiveness if Norway was the only one among
its trading partners not to follow the sterling devaluation. When the magnitude of the UK devaluation became
known, Gunnar Jahn was attending the annual meeting of the IMF in Washington. He had received provisional
authorisation from the government to inform the IMF that Norway would follow a moderate British devaluation.
The expectation was a sterling devaluation of around 20 per cent. However, Erik Brofoss had informed Jahn
that he favoured following the UK move regardless of how much they devalued. At an IMF dinner on the
evening of 16 September Jahn received a business card with the date "18 September", the number "30.5" and
the words "Tell Bramsnaes" written on it (Bramsnaes was the director of Danmarks Nationalbank, who was also
BIS Review 147/2010
demand pressures were elevated. The krone devaluation triggered high inflation.14 This time,
the rule "do what the UK does" contributed to a less favourable outcome.15
4. Groups often make better decisions than individuals
So what steps can we take to ensure that important decisions are the best they can be, even
if they have to be made under uncertainty?
In his novel L, Erlend Loe discusses advantages and drawbacks of different decision
systems. The author-narrator has embarked on an expedition to a South Pacific island with
six companions. On the island they experiment with different forms of social organisation.
After the group tries despotism, anarchy, democracy, etc., Loe concludes that enlightened
despotism has much to recommend it:
"Of course it very much depends on who the ruler is and how enlightened he or
she is, but at its best this is probably one of the more sensible forms of
16
government."
Martin, one of the other members of the expedition, also thinks that this system might work
well. He stresses, however, that the form of despotism must be a truly enlightened one:
"Not just moderately enlightened, but ultra-enlightened. The ruler needs to be
highly educated, plus be well travelled and have lots and lots of varied interests
(...) Just find an exceedingly likeable individual, someone you trust, someone
who is warm-hearted and good-natured, and ask him or her to manage things as
17
best they can."
Most people would probably argue that despite certain benefits, enlightened despotism
would not be very robust. As you may have noted, a number of assumptions underlie
Martin's conclusion, and these assumptions are not always satisfied. Delegating
decisionmaking responsibility to a group may help to guard against situations where the individual's
weaknesses and vested interests come to dominate. It can also provide some insurance
attending the IMF meeting). The business card revealed the date and magnitude of the British devaluation. It
was a busy night. Jahn sent a telegram to Brofoss where he recommended that Norway devalue the krone to
the same extent as the UK. By then the Ministry of Trade and Industry had already been informed of the UK
decision through official channels. Then, without first consulting with the other members of the government,
Brofoss decided that the Norwegian krone should be devalued by 30.5 per cent. After being instructed by
Brofoss, Gunnar Jahn informed the IMF of the decision on behalf of the Norwegian government in a letter
dated 17 September. See Gunhild J. Ecklund (2008): "Creating a new role for an old central bank: The Bank
of Norway 1945-1954", Series of Dissertations 2/2008, BI Norwegian School of Management, pp. 141-143
and William Jansen (1975): "Devalueringen i 1949" [The devaluation of 1949], History thesis, NTNU,
Trondheim.
14
For more on the background for these decisions, see Gunnar Jahn, Alf Eriksen and Preben Munthe (1966):
Norges Bank gjennom 150 år, [Norges Bank through 150 years] Norges Banks seddeltrykkeri, Oslo and
Nicolai Rygg (1950): Norges Bank i mellomkrigstiden, [Norges Bank in the interwar period] Gyldendal Norsk
Forlag, Oslo.
15
In 1965 the former director of Statistics Norway Odd Aukrust assessed the successes and mistakes in
Norwegian economic policy since the Second World War. Concerning the devaluation decision in 1949 he
writes: "This devaluation was probably the most important single economic decision made in this country since
1945, with a greater impact on prices and income distribution than any wage settlement. There can hardly be
any doubt that in the 1950s, price changes would have been less abrupt in Norway if the devaluation had not
taken place." See Odd Aukrust (1965): Tjue års økonomisk politikk i Norge: suksesser og mistak, [Twenty
years of economic policy in Norway: successes and mistakes] Articles from Statistics Norway, no. 15.
16
Erlend Loe (1999): L, J. W Cappelens forlag, p. 376.
17
Loe (1999), pp. 397-398.
against serious missteps, which seems to be particularly important when decisions are made
under uncertainty.
This notion is part of the justification for the jury system in our courts of law. The French
philosopher Marquis de Condorcet's now well known jury theorem states that the higher the
number of the group is, the higher the probability is that the group will make the correct
decision by majority vote.18 Group decision making has been widely accepted, not only by
the courts but also by business, public administration and elected governing bodies.
In his book The Wisdom of Crowds, James Surowiecki cites a number of examples where
large groups outperform individuals or small groups of experts. Contestants on the television
game show Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? have various so-called "lifelines", including
telephoning a smart friend or asking the studio audience for help. It has transpired that the
studio audience is the contestants' absolute best bet. The majority of the studio audience
votes for the correct answer nine out of ten times, beating out smart friends, who provide the
correct answer only 65 per cent of the time.19
This decision-making strategy, where each individual in a group gives an answer
independently of the others, can function well for some types of decisions. But there may
also be advantages to allowing the group to arrive at a decision through deliberation.
The economists Alan S. Blinder and John Morgan have shown in several experiments that
students who work together to solve a problem obtain a better result than the average of the
students who work alone.20 In Blinder's words:
" ...the group seems to foster some sort of collective wisdom that makes the
whole (a bit) greater than the sum of its parts."21
These experiments indicate that there may be benefits to be gained from group interaction,
which can provide increased access to varied knowledge, deconstruct opinions and test
viewpoints. We can learn from each other.
I have learned a lot in this area from the organisational psychologist Ingeborg Baustad and
her colleagues. Baustad argues that there may be a relationship between intragroup
communication and task solving. Some tasks are so simple that unilateral communication is
sufficient. For deliberative tasks the requirements are higher. Active bilateral communication
is necessary, with a willingness to listen to the views of the others in the group. For more
strategic decision-making, the level of communication must be raised a notch further. The
hallmarks of such a high communication level are curiosity about the other person's views
and the ability to broaden one's views or change one's mind as a result of discussion with
others. This type of communication normally requires a high level of professional
18
This outcome assumes that each member of the group singly is more likely to arrive at the correct conclusion
than the wrong one.
19
See James Surowiecki (2004): The wisdom of crowds. Little, Brown, London, pp. 3-4. This example was also
cited in the speech "Uncertainty in macroeconomic policy making: art or science?", which Mervyn King,
Governor of the Bank of England, gave on 22 March 2010, and is available at:
https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/news/2010/034.htm . That we both use this example may not
be a coincidence. I received my copy of The Wisdom of Crowds from Dr. John Llewellyn. Llewellyn and King
were fellow students at Cambridge.
20
See Alan S. Blinder and John Morgan (2005): "Are two heads better than one: An experimental analysis of
group versus individual decision making", Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 37, no 5, pp. 789-811 and
Alan S. Blinder og John Morgan (2007): "Leadership in groups: a monetary policy experiment", CEPS Working
Paper No. 151.
21
Alan S. Blinder (2008): "On the design of monetary policy committees", Norges Bank Working Paper, 2008/6.
BIS Review 147/2010
competence, mutual sympathy and trust and a large degree of openness. The potential
reward is better decisions by the group.22
As in most central banks, interest rate decisions in Norges Bank are entrusted to a committee.
Committee deliberations are informed by advice given by the governor and deputy governor
of Norges Bank. Norges Bank's Executive Board has seven members. The number of
committee members at other central banks varies between three and 22.23 A committee of
many members can draw on an ample supply of varied backgrounds and opinions, but a
larger number will then also have to have a say in the final decision. While research has yet
to determine the optimal committee size, Anne Sibert, one of the experts in this field, has
said that the committee should be "dinner size".24
5. But groups are no guarantee for good decisions
Norges Bank's Executive Board can be described as a collegial committee. The committee
seeks consensus through deliberations and its members stand behind the final decision.
The deliberative process does not necessarily lead to a better decision. When the group
members share the same world view and thinking, groupthink can lead the members astray.
There is typically little dissent in discussions where participants think alike. The group can
therefore be convinced that their common standpoint must be right.25
Nor is it unusual for independent thinking to be lost in a group setting. At an internal
conference, the research department at Norges Bank was divided into three groups tasked
with answering three sets of questions. Unbeknownst to the other participants, one member
in each group had been instructed to argue for the wrong answer within one of the question
sets. They did their job well. The groups did very poorly on the set of questions where the
conference organiser's confederates argued for the wrong answer.26
There is thus a danger that members of a group can be swayed by other members to make
the wrong choice. But falling into the opposite trap - paying insufficient heed to others'
advice - is not unusual either. This is a pitfall that many people, who have been in
management for a while, will be acquainted with. Psychologists have known that such
22
See more about this in Erling S. Andersen, Ingeborg Baustad and Åge Sørsveen (1994): Ledelse på norsk
[Norwegian management], Ad Notam Gyldendal, Oslo, pp. 117-126.
23
Three in Switzerland and 22 in the European Central Bank.
24
See more about this in for example Alan S. Blinder (2008) and Anne Sibert (2006): "Central Banking by
Committee", International Finance 9:2, pp. 145-168. In September 2007 Norges Bank hosted a conference on
monetary policy committees. The opening address was given by Alan S. Blinder, former vice chairman of the
Federal Reserve Board, and is one of the economists who has focused most on group decision making. Anne
Sibert also attended this conference.
25
It has also been shown that when people are in groups of like-minded persons, and especially when they are
socially isolated, they are prone to taking more extreme positions than they would on their own. The
psychologist Irving L. Janis is particularly known for his research into groupthink. His analyses concerned US
foreign policy, where groupthink might deserve much of the blame for competent persons making poor
decisions. See Irving L. Janis (1972): Victims of groupthink; a psychological study of foreign-policy decisions
and fiascoes, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
26
The psychologist Salomon Asch conducted a number of similar experiments in the 1950s. He found that "the
tendency to conformity in our society is so strong that reasonably intelligent and well meaning young people
are willing to call black white." See Salomon E. Asch (1995): "Opinions and social pressure", Scientific
American, vol. 193, no. 5, pp. 31-35.
BIS Review 147/2010
exaggerated self-confidence is found in many occupations.27 There is no reason to believe
that we economists are so different from others in that regard.
Norges Bank's Executive Board consists of five external members with varied backgrounds,
in addition to the governor and deputy governor of the Bank. The external members have
influence over decisions on a par with the internal members. The Bank is in a peculiar
situation in that the central bank governor is both administrative head of the Bank and
chairman of the Executive Board. The external members are not full-time employees of
Norges Bank, and their primary occupations are outside the central bank. In this respect, the
Executive Board has an important control function. Its external members can act as a
counterweight to any internal cultures of opinion that may arise at the Bank.28
In some central banks, such as Sveriges Riksbank and the Bank of England, interest rate
decisions are made by individualistic committees. Decisions are made by majority voting,
with each member individually accountable for his or her vote. There are advantages and
drawbacks to both individualistic and collegial committees. As I discussed in last year's
speech, individual accountability can provide good incentives. There is no one to hide
behind. At the same time such accountability entails more work and probably full-time
employment at the Bank. In that case, the former outsiders may quickly assimilate the
internal culture. The control function of the external members might be lost.
6. How do we arrive at a decision?
We also need to think carefully about how we should agree on a decision. There two
approaches: premise-based or conclusion-based.29
The two approaches may have different outcomes. Allow me to offer a stylised example.
Assume that a three-member committee is to reach an interest rate decision. They base their
decision on two premises: inflation and pressures in the economy. The first member believes
that inflation has risen more than expected, but finds that the pressures in the economy are
broadly as expected. The interest rate should therefore be raised. The second member
believes that inflation is broadly as expected, but the pressures in the economy are
surprisingly high on the upside. This member, too, will conclude, that the interest rate should
27
See overview and further references in Carl Andreas Claussen, Egil Matsen, Øistein Røisland and Ragnar
Torvik (2009): "Overconfidence, monetary policy committees and chairman dominance", Norges Bank
Working Paper 2009/17.
28
The members of the Executive Board are appointed by the government. According to Proposition No. 81
(2002-2003) to the Odelsting, the appointment process shall ensure that the Executive Board reflects a broad
range of backgrounds and expertise, with particular emphasis on economics and finance, as well as a
thorough understanding of economic issues. The proposition states that the Executive Board shall be
composed of persons of different backgrounds to ensure that it is capable of being critical of its own
assessments. See Proposition No. 81 (2002-2003) to the Odelsting: Om lov om endringer i sentralbankloven
og finansieringsvirksomhetsloven og om opphevelse av valutareguleringsloven og penge- og
kredittreguleringsloven (Concerning an Act to amend the Norges Bank Act and the Financial Institutions Act
and concerning the repeal of the Exchange Control Act and the Monetary and Credit Policy Act). Ministry of
Finance. Board appointment guidelines and rules relating to limitations on members' ownership interests and
functions are set out in the Norges Bank Act and the Regulation of 7 August 2000 relating to Norges Bank's
Executive Board members' relationship to other credit institutions and undertakings. Executive Board
members cannot inter alia be married to a member of parliament and external members cannot receive
remuneration from or sit on the board or supervisory council of financial institutions, securities firms or
collective investment undertakings. Nor are they permitted to buy or sell fixed income or foreign exchange
products when they are in possession of information concerning conditions that may influence prices, unless
the information is available to the public. In addition, the general impartiality provisions under Section 6 of the
Public Administration Act apply.
29
For a discussion of the relationship between conclusion-based and premise-based decisions, see Carl
Andreas Claussen og Øistein Røisland (2010): "A quantitative discursive dilemma", Social Choice and
Welfare, vol. 35, no. 1.
BIS Review 147/2010
be adjusted upwards. The third member believes that developments have been as expected
and concludes that the key rate should remain unchanged.
In a conclusion-based decision, the majority would vote to increase the key rate. Two out of
three members came to this conclusion. But a premise-based conclusion would in this case
have produced a different outcome. Two out of the three members believed that inflation and
economic pressures were as expected. A premise-based decision would thus leave the key
rate unchanged.
Many will favour the premise-based approach because it gives weight to the underlying basis
for the decisions we make.30 Research has also shown that it is better to discuss and vote on
the grounds for any disagreements than to go directly to the conclusion.31 At Norges Bank
we base our procedures on a premise-based decision-making process.
Economists working at Norges Bank have an important role in decision-making, particularly
because decisions are premise-based.32 The Bank's economists thus constitute a stabilising
element in the decision-making process that is robust to changes in central bank
management and the Executive Board's external members.
For the Bank's economists to perform this role properly, it is essential that they are of a very
high professional calibre. Here the Executive Board also performs a vital role, providing
constant feedback on the quality of the research supporting policy decisions. The Board also
discusses the Bank's personnel policy and measures to maintain and develop the skills of
staff economists.
But Norges Bank has a monopoly on setting the key interest rate in Norway. One of the
dangers of monopolies is a tendency towards complacency, which is why it is imperative to
be in the critical spotlight. This keeps us, Board and staff economists alike, constantly on our
toes and helps us to develop as professionals. This, in turn, results in better decisions.
Every year we must stand to account for the way in which we carry out our mandate. There
is reporting to the government and hearings in the Storting. In addition, the Ministry of
Finance commissions an independent review of monetary policy though what is known as
"Norges Bank Watch".33 At the same time we are open about what we do and why. There are
external evaluations of work routines and professional standards.34 There are no comparable
institutions in Norway - there is only one central bank. The benchmark must be international
best practice. The evaluations are generally performed by international central banking
experts or economists at other central banks.
30
See for example Bruce Chapman (2003): "Rational Choice and Categorical Reason", University of
Pennsylvania Law Review 151(3), 1169-1210 and Philip Pettit (2001): "Deliberative Democracy and the
Discursive Dilemma", Philosophical Issues (supplement to Noûs) 11, 268-99.
31
See the discussion in Carl Andreas Claussen and Øistein Røisland (2010): "The discursive dilemma in
monetary policy", Norges Bank Working Paper 2010/5. It should be noted that premise-based decisions can
be vulnerable to strategic behaviour. It is possible to vote on the premises in such a way as to reach a
preferred outcome.
32
The material on which interest rate decisions is based is published on the Norges Bank website. For a more
detailed discussion, see "On transparency" in Norges Bank Occasional Paper No. 41 (2010).
33
Reports from Norges Bank Watch are available at:
http://www.bi.no/en/Research/Research-Centres/Centrefor-Monetary-Economics-CME/Norges-Bank-Watch/
34
See inter alia David Longworth and Asbjørn Rødseth (2003):"Report on the Decision-Making Process and the
Strategy Document", Hans Genberg, Charles Wyplosz and Andrea Fracasso (2003):"How do central banks
write? An Evaluation of Inflation Targeting Central Banks" and Ingimundur Fridriksson (forthcoming): "The
Monetary Policy Report Process in Norges Bank".
BIS Review 147/2010
7. Was the decision good?
Even if our delegating authority and critics have access to the background for our decisions
and the way we arrive at them, one big question still remains: what should the criteria be for
judging whether our decisions are good?
The objective of monetary policy is a natural place to begin our assessment. Have we or
have we not achieved price stability? Even if we make our best efforts, there is no guarantee
that we will succeed in reaching this objective. The key policy rate is not the only factor
affecting the economy and that can disturb the outcome. Even so, we can give weight to
accurate information, assess the most relevant alternatives and listen to input. Making a
decision on this basis might excuse us from blame if the outcome should in retrospect turn
out to be unfavourable.35
Let us return to the decision in 1949 to follow the pound sterling. As I said, in retrospect the
consequences of this decision appear to be less favourable. Nor, perhaps, was the
decisionmaking process sufficiently thorough. Doubts have been raised as to whether alternative
courses of action were adequately assessed.36
But the authorities apparently felt that they had no choice other than a comparable
devaluation of the krone.37 Norway's competitiveness could have been weakened
substantially if they had not followed the British move. In view of this, it can therefore be
argued that their motives for doing what they did were good ones.
The 1949 decision also illustrates the problem of coun