The Impact of Economic Crisis on Sweden and Norway - Research Paper Example

The Impact of Economic Crisis on Sweden and Norway I. Introduction Economic crisis is a state in which the country’s economy undergoes an abrupt downturn as a result of financial crisis. An economy may plaster an economic crisis will most probably experience a falling gross domestic product, a desiccating up of liquidity, and falling or rising costs owing to inflation or deflation. As most economic crises are unanticipated, it is normally hard to define the exact cause of the crisis. Nevertheless, there are a number of circumstances that offer the setting for an economic issue. It is significant to annotate that the occurrence of these settings does not automatically cause an economic crisis. An economy is a very multifaceted unit, and for such a unit of dysfunction, the states have to be obstinate over a long period. This paper talks about these impacts in details, their negative effects on the states in question, and how these nations are devising ways to fight such a state. It also compares the adverse effect of these economic crises on the given states. II. Theme The main theme that runs across this entire piece of writing is the effects of economic crisis in Sweden and Norway, their negative impacts and ways in which the countries are trying to fight the same. The paper also compares the effect of these crisis to the two mentioned countries. III. Questions 1. How did the economic downturn and recovery impact business in Sweden and Norway? How do these countries differ in that respect, and what economic, political, or cultural explanations might account for any differences? Impacts of economic crisis in Sweden In Sweden, the monetary deregulation began a few years ago. The financial intermediaries hastily stretched loans as an outcome of the monetary deregulation. Mortgage institutions, banks, and finance firms freely competed to grant loans. The total lend increased by 136 % from 1986 to 1990. A tax increase was also experienced due to the rise in housing costs. According to Perrels, (2010), when people borrowed from financial institutions to purchase houses, interest expenses were wholly deductible from taxable salary. High-leverage monetary savings were used in the standard market. The standard market became lively and stock amounts persistent in rising. The redundancy rate continued to drop to the lowest levels in 1989. Mutually, high increase anticipation and a tax benefit decreased the after-tax actual interest rate to a lower level. Conversely, the bubble unexpectedly busted after 1990, when the financial strategy was tautened. A tax improvement also contributed to the severe drop of asset costs. A reduction of the interest expenses from taxable earnings was strictly forced by the change. The stock market on the other hand also adversely responded and began to drop. Specifically, real estate stock cost index had dropped by 52%. The bust of the bubble was initiated by a taut monetary strategy. The fundamental change of financial strategy was triggered by international interest rate hiking, succeeding the German reintegration and Riksbank’s plan alteration to focus on inflation. The monetary crisis had originated in Sweden when one of the investment firms, Nyckeln could not roll over mellowing marknadsbevis in 1990. Other investment firms also liquidated due to the fast shrinking of marknadsbevis markets. The monetary crisis spread to the whole monetary unit as the commercial banks gave funds to the investment firms. 2 of the 6 major banks, nordbanken, Första, and Sparbanken triggered creditworthiness issues (Lundberg, 1996). The retort of the Swedish regime was very hasty. They sturdily reinforced the monetary unit, declaring that they will guarantee all bank loans. The public funds were quickly introduced to save the issues of the financial institutions. Money stock was swiftly raised. Both the State funds instillation and a new exchange rate unit donated to the early regaining of the Swedish economy. Impact of economic crisis in Norway The Norway’s monetary crisis was not as severe as that in Sweden. The crisis happened a few years earlier than those in Sweden. Asset cost rise did not proceed for long as a result of the oil price drop in 1986. A notional attack against krone was not as fierce as in Sweden, as krone was not so hyped before the assaults started in early 1990, though, it is true that the monetary crisis sturdily spoiled Norwegian economy (Lars, 2009). The banks were severely controlled in both the number and rates for their loaning by the mid-1980s as in other Nordic states. The interest rates were theatrically maintained at a low level. The extra need for loaning was organized by the credit limiting. Banks were also obliged to advance in public bonds. International capital and foreign exchange actions were also sturdily controlled. The state regulated the monetary unit through the reduced loans to politically significant divisions, such as the domestic zone, and industrially miserable zones in northern Norway. They still progressed to give the reduced funds on a large scale even when housing was enough. The sturdily controlled monetary unit was kept even when the State switched to a conservative party. Sturdy political stress groups added significantly from the reduced loans. Many households and companies had heaps of arrears, and Norwegian politicians had robust anti-market opinions. The oil amount had swiftly dropped in 1986. Petroleum-related firms which were main firms in Norway were impaired. Nevertheless, the limiting economic strategy was executed in 1987 and 1988 to cut the actual throwaway earning of households and to cut imports. A fiscal plan was also tautened to protect the fixed exchange rate unit in 1986. The downturn had begun in 1988 when both housing expenses and the share price begun to drop. The real estate costs dropped by 40% from mid-1987 to 1991. Liquidations hastily augmented. In 1987, the top bank, Den Norsuke Credit bank underwent a big loss. In 1989, an average sized bank, Norion was liquidated. The investment crises had got shoddier in 1991. The state decided to introduce public capitals to the banks in 1991 and 1992 (Gwartney & Lawson, 2009). The Central Bank underrated the outcome of the monetary deregulation on credit source and amassed demand. They targeted insignificant interest rates in their financial plan. The leading political party, the Labor Party, had maintained a lower interest rate in its 1985 election operations after the actual interest rate was very small. The small interest rate aiming plan seemed to make the Central Bank to keep the easy plan. When the oil price began to drop, the Central Bank started to source heaps of liquidity into the banks in edict to evade the increase of nominal interest rate, which powered the growth of credit. The fund of such liquidity advances went up to 80 billion kroner. This extended the credit development and the wealth in Norway (Reinhart & Rogoff, 2009). 2. How did the unique financial conditions in Sweden and Norway help them overcome the economic crisis? Also, how did the unique cultural and geography in Sweden and Norway help them overcome the economic crisis? The Nordic states developed late, but rapidly. Early development was often grounded on the utilization of rich natural assets. In Sweden, the forest was the basic source of prospects for augmented exports, while Sweden’s great ore deposits also paid to its early economic development. In the contrary, Norway used its numerous waterfalls to produce power, and its economy was additionally reinforced by oil survey in the North Sea. It had also a wide fishing industry. As per the OECD (2007), in recent years, the Nordic states have experienced hasty structural alterations, with predominantly swift development in the service department and in firms based on new technologies. The Nordic states are considered to be exceptionally innovative. Firms such as Ericsson and Nokia are worldwide leaders in the ICT sector. Foreign possession in the Region augmented, which had a positive impact on the Nordic economies mostly when it comes to enlargement in new growth departments. In a globalized economy, the states have been persistent to validate their ability to acclimate well and exploit the profits of changing situations. How the crisis was overcome by the individual countries/the response The central banks have basically paid by adding great sums of liquidity via loans against security to the banks. This has been essential as the banks have had a hard time to use in the small and average terms. In order to elucidate this issue, central banks in two States have given the financing that the banks have not been capable to obtain on the market. A number of central banks have keenly handled issues in individual organizations. The two regimes gave guarantees and investment additions to reduce the risk of more bankruptcies in the banking department. Disquiet over banks and other monetary players going broke has been a central constituent of the financial confusion. Given the susceptible situation that the global monetary unit is now in, it may be reckless to let systemically important monetary organizations go broke. Several regions in the two countries are also certain on a more expansionary economic plan to gap the downturn in economic action. 3. How are key industries, such as oil, technology, banking, consulting and audit, being impacted and how are they managing? Sweden went into a downturn in late 2008 as the world trade collapsed, but recovered in mid-2009 as exports elated, with the OECD foreseeing GDP advance of 3.9% in 2011. Nevertheless, there were warning ciphers that exports were to slow in 2012, and its Central Bank cut the country's GDP forecast for 2012 to 0.7% from 1.3% in early February. Its economy largely recovered quite quickly from monetary crises (Reinhart & Rogoff, 2009). The Norway regime oil fund, or pension financing, which finances overseas tax revenue gained from the nation’s oil and gas production, was worth around 572 billion dollars. The financing made 9.6% advances in 2010, after compelling a thrash in the 2008 crisis. It aimed at 4 % annual earnings, and it is among the world's biggest sovereign prosperity financing. It saw a drop in exports, which accounted for around 41 % of its GDP, succeeding the 2008 crisis. This could dispense billions of kronor into its export credit financing, to aid steady, affected departments. 4. How has membership, or non-membership, in the EU, impacted the economics of each country? Sweden being a member of the EU community received external help from the other member countries. This, to some extend brought some relief to the state. Norway was not a member of EU, hence it did not get any direct help, meaning it was severely affected by the crisis. The Nordic states have trailed relatively similar organization development designs. In all of the Nordic states, the nation and the public departments have held major roles to hold in the economic sphere, not only through venturing in research, infrastructure, and education, but also in terms of social wellbeing. Although taxation stages have been great in all of the Nordic states, the welfare state is deliberated to be powerful when it comes to economic advancement The welfare state has also had a positive impact on the economy. The public division and welfare services have aided the states to develop a vastly skillful workforce and a high stage of employment, combined with a steady civil society, a robust democratic tradition, and an operative regulatory basis, which has led to the rise in the Region of a wide social capital; a pillar of the economy. IV. Discussion In examining the effects on employment circumstances, the research perceives how safe employment state is and whether it is endangered by the crisis and connected changes. Feelings of job timidity are debated and developments in employment eminence are illustrated by concentrating on seasonal employment. This is tailed by a brief inspection of wage alterations during the crisis. The occupation perspective on security is taken by concentrating on job flexibility, training, and labor relocation styles (Nolan, 2014). V. Conclusion Economic crisis will always have a negative effect to the entire state. Though the economic impacts of Sweden and Norway are somehow different, the two states felt them almost deeply in the same way. Back in the 80s, both countries experienced deregulation. As time went by, financial liberalization set off a justifiable lending boom, an increase in asset prices, and capital inflows, thus rapidly raising investment and consumption. The boom became a bust around 1990, with widespread bankruptcies, negative GDP growth, capital outflows, falling employment, depression, systematic banking, and currency crises. Finally, the central banks in both Sweden and Norway had to shift to flexible rates towards the end of 1992 so that they could avert the depression. In simple terms, this means that it calls for a clear cooperation with other states so as to come up with ways that can aid in the stabilizing of the economy once again. References Jackson, J. K. (2010). Financial Crisis: Impact on and Response by the European Union. DIANE Publishing. Gwartney, J., & Lawson, R. (2009). Economic Freedom of the World: Annual Report 2009. Jonung, L., Kiander, J., & Vartia, P. (Eds.). (2009). The great financial crisis in Finland and Sweden: the Nordic experience of financial liberalization. Edward Elgar Publishing. Lundberg, E. F. (1996). The Development of Swedish and Keynesian Macroeconomic Theory and Its Impact on Economic Policy. Cambridge University Press. Nolan, W. S. (2014). Changing Inequalities and Societal Impacts in Rich Countries: Thirty Countries' Experiences. Oxford University Press. OECD. (2007). Jobs for Immigrants (Vol. 1) Labour Market Integration in Australia, Denmark, Germany and Sweden: Labour Market Integration in Australia, Denmark, Germany and Sweden. OECD Publishing. Perrels, A. (2010). The economic crisis and its consequences for the environment and environmental policy. Nordic Council of Ministers. Reinhart, C. M., & Rogoff, K. S. (2009). The aftermath of financial crises (No. w14656). National Bureau of Economic Research. Read More