Christian Noyer: Conducting monetary policy in times of financial stress Speech by Mr Christian Noyer, Governor of the Bank of France, at the European Banking and Financial Forum, Prague, 1 April 2008. *  *  *  For more than two centuries, preserving the value of money and fostering the stability of payment systems and credit and financial markets have been the two main responsibilities of central banks around the world. Under normal circumstances, we tend to think of these tasks as relatively distinct. Furthermore, this practical dichotomy broadly reflects the academic state of the art: as Professor Goodhart recently stressed, the large consensus on the macroeconomic policy side of central banking that has emerged over the last two decades contrasts with the absence of consensus on the appropriate theoretical framework for analysing financial stability and the best ways of ensuring it or restoring it when it breaks down.1 However, in times of stress, some interactions inevitably emerge. For instance, the financial turmoil has a clear impact on the effectiveness of monetary policy transmission (see for example the unusually large spreads on the money markets since August 2007). Conversely, adequate monetary policy decisions and credible communication should contribute to the orderly unwinding of financial crises. Periods of turmoil, like the one we are now experiencing, are thus clearly challenging, since we have to rethink the way in which we can meet both of our responsibilities. I will first address the issue of the necessary separation of liquidity management and monetary policy decisions.
It goes without saying that it is not only a quantitative issue and that at the same time the efficiency of research and development in terms of industrialisation  12  See P. Hartmann, F. Heider, E. Papaioannou and M. Lo Duca (2007), “The role of financial markets and innovation for productivity and growth in Europe”, ECB Occasional Paper forthcoming. 13  Some authors have calculated that if the average size of capital markets in the EU was bigger - in the US for instance this size is around 450% of GDP instead of 220% in the EU (based on an overall indicator measuring total financing in the economy by aggregating bank credit to the private sector, stock market capitalisation and the outstanding amount of domestic debt securities issued by the private sector) - then annual GDP per capita growth in the EU could be positively influenced (see G. Favara (2006), “An empirical reassessment of the relationship between finance and growth”, mimeo). 14  See the European Commission’s Green Paper entitled “Entrepreneurship in Europe”, 21.01.2003. 6  BIS Review 82/2007  is crucial. In the longer term, GDP could be up by 4.2% in 2015 and 7.0% in 2020, equivalent to an additional growth rate of nearly 0.5% per year 15 . Finally, to make these measures most effective, they need to be accompanied by efforts to improve the labour force’s level of education and expertise.