about 5 %, real growth was the highest of the past two decades, and exports benefited accordingly. in all likelihood, 2005 will also be a propitious year, seeing the economy grow by approximately 4 %, a rate that is still above - trend. in 2005, our export sector will continue to profit from a global trade growth by approximately 8 %. and we should factor in something else. as economies grow more flexible, so will their ability to cope with exchange rate fluctuations. take the canadian, australian and new - zealand economies, for example, which in the past 5 years expanded by 3 % or more. this contrasts sharply with the average growth rate of 1. 6 % in the euro area. the hefty movements in the euro / dollar rate seen in the past five years should therefore bring home the need for greater flexibility in the economy. the favourable global picture is largely accounted for by the united states and asia, more in particular china and india. over a period of six years, exports from china doubled to 6 % of world exports in 2003. china ’ s tempestuous economic development is taking place at the expense of the environment. it would be bad for the global environment if every chinese citizen had a throbbing car and a humming fridge. and while signs are pointing to a gradual awareness in china of the downside of booming energy consumption, this does not take away the fact that we are dealing with a colossal problem. however, we should also count our blessings : it is pure gain that so many world citizens are sharing in wealth. i consider china ’ s breakthrough final. from now on, we should refer to the g4, instead of g3. we live in a quadrupolar world, made up of the united states, europe, japan and china. europe is lagging behind the united states and asia. more growth in europe would be desirable, also from a global perspective. it would increase the united states ’ export potential. what is especially required is a stronger european drive in the structural field. the eu enlargement in central and eastern europe will provide an impulse in the short term. this is the only part of europe that does share in the global growth acceleration. furthermore, we should hope that the growth spurt seen in the nineties in the united states will spread to europe. in a recent study, the american central bank estimates annual labour productivity growth at 2. 6 % in the next ten years. it is about time that europe also manages to

is needed in the old ones. the old countries in the eu have presently a highly unfavourable demographic situation, as previously broad age groups are retiring and the base of active people to support them is being reduced. in sweden today, each person in the active population supports 0. 29 people over 65 ; by 2030 this ratio is estimated to have risen to 0. 42. the corresponding figures for italy and belgium are even more alarming. one way to reduce the dependency burden and increase the labour force is to try to get people that are unemployed, sick or in early retirement back to work. historically, however, the most reliable way to steadily boost the labour force has been immigration, as has been the case in the united states, for example. experiences and studies also show that people with the most advanced qualifications and best training most often have the greatest incentive to move, partly because the wage differential is bigger and partly because they find linguistic and cultural barriers easier to overcome. so to consolidate the welfare in the old countries, an increase inflow of highly qualified labour from the new member states would be desirable. the question is whether this is not correspondingly a disadvantage to the new member states. they have a somewhat different demographic situation, their dependency burden is lower today, but will later rise sharply and in several countries exceed italy ’ s or sweden's in 20 - 30 years. there is also a risk that it would be the best - qualified labour that would emigrate first. meetings in a broader circle having considered these prospects, i would like to provide an insight into how the enlargement changes the functioning of the eu. the riksbank participates in a large number of eu committees. i myself am a member of the economic and financial committee ( efc ), where senior officials from the finance ministries and deputy governors of the central banks in the eu discuss economic issues. the fact that there are now 25 countries instead of 15 and therefore considerably more at the table implies changes, of course. on the one hand, there is less scope for each country - the central banks, for example, don ’ t participate as often in the efc after the enlargement and the speaking time per person places greater demands on concise, brief contributions. on the other hand the discussion has been vitalised by the new countries, which in some ways are less bound by tradition and which have new angles of approach, sometimes for the simple reason that many leading decision - makers in the new member