views on the global perspective on equality and the possible explanations for increased inequality in many developed economies during recent decades. as i have said, the contribution from monetary policy to equality should in my view in general be minor. • i do not think you can talk about globalisation without also talking about technology. some argue that increased inequality in many countries is due to the latest technological progress having been skills biased, resulting in a rise in the skill premium and the decline of some labour market institutions in advanced economies, emerging markets and developing countries 4. the decline of labour market institutions includes lower trade union membership, which reduces the relative bargaining power of labour, and more flexible labour market institutions that can pose challenges see, for example, the effects of the monetary policy pursued by the federal reserve in connection with the financial crises in bivens ( 2015 ), the effects of monetary policy in the usa since 1980 in coiboin ( 2016 ), the effects in advanced economies since 1990 in panel data - analyses in furceri et al. ( 2016 ) and effects of the monetary policy conducted by the ecb in connection with and after the financial crises, with a focus on germany in bundesbank ( 2016 ). 4 one example is that a decline in trade union membership ( union rate ) reduces the relative bargaining power of labour, exacerbating wage inequality ( frederiksen and poulsen 2010 ). another is that more flexible labour market institutions ( although positive for reallocating resources to more productive firms and enabling firm restructuring ) can pose challenges for workers, especially those with low skills, and hence play an important role in explaining inequality developments ( alvadero et al 2013 ). 3 for workers with low skills. technological progress combined with globalization seems to have played at least some role in increasing inequality within countries. • the discussion of the effects of globalization is interesting. globalization has for long been a natural part of the nordic economies. our dependency on foreign trade is much higher than the global average. there is among the nordic countries an acceptance on the positive long term net effects on productivity, growth and employment. globalization creates opportunities for new jobs. • the reason for the positive view on globalisation in the nordic countries might be a broader social security net and public policy that help people who lose their jobs due to trade as well as technology. training and education improve employability and reasonable replacement ratios in unemployment benefit and other social benefits can mitigate the negative short - term effects of globalization. these are

; leaning against the wind as it is usually called. but if one weighs the advantages of conducting this policy against the disadvantages, i reach the conclusion that there is no justification for it in sweden today. as i see it, the advantages are small. we do not have a general credit boom in the swedish economy that needs dampening. however, we do have problems with high housing prices that lead to high household indebtedness and risks associated with this. but it is difficult to use monetary policy to influence household indebtedness without this having very negative consequences in the form of poorer target attainment for inflation and poorer stability in the real economy in the coming years. poorer target attainment over a long period of time also entails costs and risks in itself which must be taken into account. the framework in which monetary policy is conducted in sweden and in many other countries is based on the mandate of maintaining price stability, often specified as a target for inflation, as we have in sweden. and it is this mandate that is the reason why central banks in general have been allocated a greater degree of independence than other public bis central bankers ’ speeches authorities. over the past two decades, the clear objectives for monetary policy and the independent work by central banks to attain them, have proved effective in anchoring inflation expectations and creating stability in the economy. however, the framework is based on the central bank actually delivering. if inflation is allowed to deviate from an established target over a long period of time it can affect the general public ’ s understanding of the policy conducted and their confidence in the inflation target. the more the central bank stretches its task of delivering the set objective, the more difficult it will be to understand and evaluate the policy conducted. and then the greater the risk will be that the general public ’ s attitude to the framework deteriorates. i intend to try to describe my opinion on these questions today and on how they tie in with my view of the role of the central bank and how monetary policy should be conducted within the current framework. it may be useful to start by describing the framework we have lived with for a good twenty years now. why do we have an inflation target and an independent central bank? why an inflation target and independence? from credibility problems for the fixed exchange rate... when the international monetary system of fixed exchange rates – what was known as the bretton woods system – collapsed at the beginning of the 1970s, sweden needed to find a new nominal anchor for