On September 12, 2018, the Executive Board of the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) concluded the Article IV Consultation
[1]
with Norway.
Norway is in the midst of a healthy recovery from the oil downturn,
supported by positive trends in oil prices and a strengthening labor
market. In addition, banks remain profitable and well capitalized.
However, household debt continues to increase and house prices have
resumed their rise, especially in the Oslo area, after a correction
during 2017.
Mainland growth is projected to increase from 2 percent in 2017 to 2½
percent in each 2018 and 2019, underpinned by solid consumption,
stronger business investment and an export recovery. Petroleum
investment will also pick up. As a result, output will likely start to
exceed potential in 2019. Unemployment, which has already fallen below
4 percent, is expected to decrease somewhat further as labor market
slack continues to diminish. Headline inflation is already above the 2
percent revised target, and core inflation is slowly converging towards
it.
Risks to the outlook are broadly balanced. Externally, global trade
tensions could be damaging to a highly open economy such as Norway.
Domestically, the most prominent downside risk is related to high
household debt and elevated house prices. With over 90 percent of
mortgages being variable rate, highly-leveraged households and
consumption are vulnerable should financial conditions tighten
abruptly. Relatedly, a sharp decline in house prices could curb private
consumption and create negative spillovers to banks’ balance sheets. On
the upside, the economic upswing may prove stronger than expected, not
least through the impact of higher oil prices on consumption and
investment.
The 2017 fiscal outturn implied a stimulus of 0.2 percent of mainland
trend GDP. The non-oil structural balance stood at 7.5 percent of
mainland trend GDP (equivalent to 2.8 percent of the GPFG). The revised
2018 budget maintains a neutral stance by saving stronger-than-expected
gains from oil, and focuses on boosting long-term growth potential. Its
key measures aim at scaling back and shifting the tax burden from
direct to indirect taxes, improving public sector efficiency, enhancing
infrastructure, and promoting innovation.
Executive Board Assessment
[1]
Executive Directors agreed with the thrust of the staff appraisal. They
commended the Norwegian authorities for the skillful deployment of
countercyclical policies during the last downturn, which set the stage
for the current recovery. Directors noted that economic growth is
running above potential thanks to firm improvements in the labor market
and favorable oil prices. Nevertheless, Directors cautioned that global
trade tensions and an abrupt tightening of financial conditions could
adversely impact Norway. Over the longer term, population ageing and
slowing labor productivity could weigh on potential growth. Against
this background, Directors recommended calibrated macroeconomic
policies and structural reforms to sustain prosperity, by boosting
productivity and promoting a successful transition away from oil.
Directors welcomed the decision in the revised 2018 budget to save the
higher‑than‑expected oil windfall. They also advised that the 2019
budget should target a modestly contractionary stance to begin
unwinding the significant fiscal stimulus provided during the last
downturn. Arresting the rise in non‑oil deficits of the last two
decades would help relieve pressure on the real exchange rate, thus
preserving competitiveness. It would also give Norway a headstart on
long term consolidation needed to address challenges from population
ageing.
Directors welcomed the new monetary policy framework, which is not
expected to result in major policy changes. They emphasized that the
inflation outlook warrants a gradual tightening, as signaled by Norges
Bank in its forward guidance. Directors noted the high levels of
capital and liquidity in the banking sector but cautioned against
financial stability risks, including from a combination of high
household debt and fast rising house prices. In this context, Directors
welcomed the recent extension of the macro‑prudential measures but
underscored the need to tighten policies further, and on a regionally
differentiated basis, if risks were to intensify. Further progress
should also be made in relaxing constraints on housing supply and in
reducing tax incentives in favor of home ownership.
Directors underscored the need for Norway to underpin competitiveness
further. In this context, they recommended that the wage moderation
achieved by social partners in recent years be carried forward to
facilitate the needed transition of the economy out of oil and
reinforce resilience against adverse developments in international
prices. Reforms in recent years to support innovation and productivity
growth should also be continued.
Directors noted that Norway’s social model requires high labor
participation to be sustainable. Recent agreements on private and
public sector pensions will commendably lengthen working lives and
foster labor mobility. However, reforms are still needed to enhance
work incentives, notably changes in the sickness and disability
schemes. There is also room to improve the integration of vulnerable
groups into the labor market.
|
Table 1. Norway: Selected Economic and
Social Indicators, 2013–19
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Projections
|
|
|
2013
|
2014
|
2015
|
2016
|
2017
|
2018
|
2019
|
|
Real economy (change in
percent)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Real GDP 1/
|
1.0
|
2.0
|
2.0
|
1.1
|
1.9
|
2.1
|
2.1
|
|
Real mainland GDP
|
2.3
|
2.2
|
1.4
|
1.0
|
1.9
|
2.5
|
2.4
|
|
Domestic demand
|
3.5
|
1.6
|
0.7
|
2.7
|
2.5
|
2.3
|
2.2
|
|
Unemployment rate (percent
of labor force)
|
3.8
|
3.6
|
4.5
|
4.7
|
4.2
|
3.8
|
3.7
|
|
Output gap (mainland
economy, - implies output
below potential)
|
0.5
|
0.6
|
0.0
|
-0.9
|
-0.6
|
-0.2
|
0.2
|
|
CPI (average)
|
2.1
|
2.0
|
2.1
|
3.6
|
1.8
|
1.9
|
2.0
|
|
Gross national saving
(percent of GDP)
|
38.1
|
38.6
|
35.5
|
33.1
|
34.3
|
36.1
|
36.4
|
|
Gross domestic investment
(percent of GDP)
|
27.9
|
28.1
|
27.6
|
29.3
|
28.8
|
28.3
|
28.7
|
|
Public finance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Central government (fiscal
accounts basis)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overall balance (percent of
mainland GDP) 2/
|
9.4
|
6.0
|
1.3
|
-3.1
|
-2.0
|
-0.7
|
-0.7
|
|
Nonoil balance (percent of
mainland GDP) 3/
|
-4.8
|
-6.3
|
-7.1
|
-7.7
|
-8.0
|
-8.4
|
-8.5
|
|
Structural non-oil balance
(percent of mainland trend
GDP) 4/
|
-5.2
|
-5.9
|
-6.6
|
-7.3
|
-7.5
|
-7.6
|
-7.6
|
|
Fiscal impulse
|
0.4
|
0.7
|
0.6
|
0.7
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
0.0
|
|
in percent of Pension Fund
Global Capital 5/
|
-3.3
|
-3.0
|
-2.7
|
-2.7
|
-2.8
|
-2.7
|
-2.8
|
|
General government
(national accounts
definition percent of
mainland GDP)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overall balance
|
13.7
|
10.8
|
7.2
|
4.6
|
5.2
|
6.9
|
6.9
|
|
Net financial assets
|
262.6
|
305.6
|
335.4
|
325.3
|
350.3
|
333.2
|
328.9
|
|
of which: capital of
Government Pension Fund
Global (GPF-G)
|
207.7
|
253.2
|
284.6
|
276.4
|
302.8
|
287.6
|
285.6
|
|
Money and credit (end of
period, 12-month percent
change)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Broad money, M2
|
7.3
|
6.4
|
0.6
|
5.1
|
6.0
|
…
|
…
|
|
Domestic credit, C2
|
6.8
|
6.0
|
6.1
|
4.7
|
6.3
|
…
|
…
|
|
Interest rates (year
average, in percent)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three-month interbank rate
|
1.8
|
1.7
|
1.3
|
1.1
|
0.9
|
1.1
|
1.4
|
|
Ten-year government bond
yield
|
2.6
|
2.5
|
1.6
|
1.3
|
1.6
|
1.9
|
2.1
|
|
Balance of payments
(percent of mainland GDP)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Current account balance
|
13.0
|
13.0
|
9.4
|
4.4
|
6.5
|
9.5
|
9.4
|
|
Exports of goods and
services (volume change in
percent)
|
-1.7
|
3.1
|
4.7
|
-1.8
|
1.1
|
2.0
|
2.4
|
|
Imports of goods and
services (volume change in
percent)
|
5.0
|
2.4
|
1.6
|
2.3
|
2.8
|
1.9
|
2.9
|
|
Terms of trade (change in
percent)
|
0.0
|
-6.3
|
-11.7
|
-9.9
|
4.9
|
1.1
|
0.8
|
|
International reserves (end
of period, in billions of
US dollars)
|
57.9
|
66.9
|
58.5
|
60.9
|
65.1
|
73.3
|
78.7
|
|
Fund position
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Holdings of currency
(percent of quota)
|
78.2
|
85.6
|
89.8
|
93.9
|
93.5
|
…
|
…
|
|
Holdings of SDR (percent of
allocation)
|
95.1
|
94.8
|
96.4
|
88.3
|
102.7
|
…
|
…
|
|
Quota (SDR millions)
|
1,884
|
1,884
|
1,884
|
3,755
|
3,755
|
…
|
…
|
|
Exchange rates (end of
period)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exchange rate regime
|
Floating
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bilateral rate (NOK/USD),
end-of-period
|
5.9
|
6.3
|
8.1
|
8.4
|
8.3
|
…
|
…
|
|
Real effective rate
(2010=100)
|
99.0
|
94.2
|
86.5
|
86.6
|
87.4
|
…
|
…
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sources: Ministry of
Finance, Norges Bank,
Statistics Norway,
International Financial
Statistics, United Nations
Development Programme, and
Fund staff calculations.
|
|
1/ Based on market prices
which include "taxes on
products, including VAT,
less subsidies on
products".
|
|
2/ Projections based on
authorities' 2018 budget.
|
|
|
|
|
|
3/ Projections based on
authorities' 2018 budget
removes both petroleum
revenues and expenditures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
4/ Authorities' key fiscal
policy variable; excludes
oil-related revenue and
expenditure, GPFG income,
as well as cyclical
effects.
|
|
5/ Over-the-cycle deficit
target: 3 percent of
Pension Fund Global Capital
|
[1]
Under Article IV of the IMF's Articles of Agreement, the IMF holds
bilateral discussions with members, usually every year. A staff
team visits the country, collects economic and financial
information, and discusses with officials the country's economic
developments and policies. On return to headquarters, the staff
prepares a report, which forms the basis for discussion by the
Executive Board.
[1]
At the conclusion of the discussion, the Managing Director, as
Chairman of the Board, summarizes the views of Executive Directors,
and this summary is transmitted to the country's authorities. An
explanation of any qualifiers used in summings up can be found
here:
http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/misc/qualifiers.htm.
|
|