Atlantic Economic Journal

, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp 411–428 | Cite as

Nordic Lessons from Exchange Rate Regimes

  • Gylfi Zoega


The Nordic countries of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden share common history, culture and institutions. Four, with the exception of Finland, have languages that stem from a common root. Yet the five countries have chosen different paths when it comes to membership in international organizations. Denmark, Iceland and Norway became founding members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization while Finland and Sweden decided to stay neutral. Denmark, Sweden and Finland belong to the European Union while Iceland and Norway only belong to the European Single Market. Only Finland of the three European Union member countries has adopted the euro as its currency, Denmark has a fixed exchange rate against the euro and Sweden has a floating exchange rate regime. Yet, in spite of different monetary regimes, the economic performance in recent decades is quite similar, casting doubt on the importance of the exact regime chosen.


Monetary regime Nordic countries 


E42 E52 E58 


  1. Aliber, Robert Z (2011) “Monetary turbulence and the Icelandic economy,” in Preludes to the Icelandic Financial Crisis, eds. Robert Z. Aliber and Gylfi Zoega, Palgrave-MacMillan.Google Scholar
  2. Aliber, R. Z. (2016). A lego approach to international monetary reform. Atlantic Economic Journal, 44(2), 139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aliber, R. Z., & Kindleberger, C. P. (2015). Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises (Seventh ed.). London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersen, Torben, Bengt Holmström, Seppo Honkapohja, Sixten Korkman, Hans Tson Söderström and Juhana Vartiainen (2007), “The Nordic Model: Embracing globalization and sharing risks,” The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy (ETLA).
  5. Andersen, T. M., & Svarer, M. (2007). Flexicurity – Labour market performance in Denmark. CESifo Economic Studies, 55(3), 389–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andersen, T. (2012). A flexicurity labour market in the great recession: The case of Denmark. De Economist, 160(2), 117–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baumol, W. J. (1996). Entrepreneurship: Productive, unproductive, and destructive. Journal of Business Venturing, 11(1), 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benediktsdottir, S., Danielsson, J., & Zoega, G. (2011). Lessons from a Collapse of a Financial System. Economic Policy, 26(66), 183–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Breedon, F., Petursson, T. G., & Rose, A. K. (2012). Exchange rate policy in small rich economies. Open Economies Review, 23, 421–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Calmfors, L., & Driffill, J. (1988). Bargaining structure, corporatism and macroeconomic performance. Economic Policy, 3(6), 13–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Finlands Bank (2017), Monetary policy,
  12. Friedman, M. (1953). The case for flexible exchange rates. In Essays in Positive Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Gylfason, Thorvaldur, Bengt Holmström, Sixten Korkman, Hans Tson Söderström and Vesa Vihriala (2010), Nordics in Global Crisis: Vulnerability and resilience, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy, Taloustieto Oy,
  14. Hansen, Niels (2016), “Monetary policy at low interest rates: An international comparison”. Lecture by Niels Lynggard Hansen, Aarhus, 28 November 2016.Google Scholar
  15. Haberler, G. (1945). The choice of exchange rates after the war. The American Economic Review, 35(3), 308–318.Google Scholar
  16. Hall, R. E., & Jones, C. I. (1999). Why do some countries produce so much more output per worker than others? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(1), 83–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heritage Foundation (2017)
  18. Hirst, Tomas (2015), “What’s happening to Finland’s economy?” World Economic Forum,
  19. Jonung, L. (2004). To be or not to be in the euro? Benefits and Costs of Monetary Unification as Perceived by Voters in the Swedish euro Referendum 2003. Cato Journal, 24(1–2), 123–149.Google Scholar
  20. Lehmus, Markku and Vesa Vihriala (2016), “The role of wage adjustment in alleviating the economic crisis in Finland,” ETLA Briefs, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy,
  21. Little, Jane Sneddon (2002), “Sweden’s approach to monetary policy,” New England Economic Review, 51–55,
  22. Murphy, K. M., Schleifer, A., & Vishny, R. (1990). The allocation of talent: Implications for growth. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(2), 503–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mussa, M. (1986). Nominal exchange rate regimes and the behavior of the real exchange rate. In K. Brunner and A.H. Meltzer (Eds.), Real business cycles, real exchange rates and actual policies (pp. 117–123). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  24. OECD statistics (2017)
  25. Ollivaud, P., Rusticelli, E and Schwellnus, C (2015), “The changing role of the exchange rate for macroeconomic adjustment,” OECD Economics Department Working Paper 1190.
  26. Sinn, Hans-Werner and Timo Wollmershauser (2012), “Target balances and the German financial account in light of the European balance-of-payments crisis,” CESifo Working paper No. 4051. file:///C:/Users/gz/Downloads/SSRN-id2202092.pdf.Google Scholar
  27. Svensson, L. E. O. (2011). Practical monetary policy: Examples from Sweden and the United States. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, 42(1), 289–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zoega, Gylfi (2016), “Iceland’s financial crisis: An economic perspective,” in Iceland’s Financial Crisis: The politics of blame, protest, and reconstruction, Valur Ingimundarson, Philippe Urfalino and Irma Erlingsdottir (eds.), Volume 127 of Routledge advances in European politics, London and New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Atlantic Economic Society 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of IcelandReykjavikIceland
  2. 2.Department of Economics, Management and Mathematics, Birkbeck CollegeUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations