These changes, and others, seem likely to have made the financial system both more effective in moving capital to its most productive use and more stable and resilient over time. But they do not, of course, mean the end of systemic risk in financial markets. They could in some circumstances work to magnify rather than mitigate stress. Central banks, supervisors and those running the major private financial institutions need to continue to work to ensure that what Jerry Corrigan calls the “shock absorbers” in the financial system - capital and liquidity and the operational infrastructure - are sufficiently strong and robust to withstand economic and financial conditions more adverse than we have seen in the recent past. Thank you. BIS Review 2/2007  3
Moreover, the study finds that measures such as attracting foreign workers and raising the retirement age from 60 to 65 have only small impact at boosting the economy’s long-term growth and that the key to maintaining high growth rate lies in enhancing productivity growth rather than trying to squeeze out more hours from the aging population. While improvement in educational and skill attainment of the labor force and de-bottlenecking of inefficient sectors such as improvement in the logistic system and water management for irrigation are most obvious policies, financial deepening must not be neglected. It is the efficiency of resource allocation which includes funds and capital that enhances economic productivity, hence, raising the economy’s long-term growth potential. This is the focus of the rest of my talk to which I now turn. Ladies and Gentlemen, As you know, the fundamental function of financial markets and intermediaries is to channel funds from those who have a surplus of savings to those who have a deficit. If financial markets are functioning efficiently, they contribute to an optimal allocation of resources, reduce the cost of capital, and allow for risk-sharing and risk-diversification. Well-developed and efficient financial markets contribute to higher productivity growth because they are better at channeling capital from sectors in decline to those with growth opportunities, in a  BIS Review 118/2008  3  process of Schumpeterian “creative destruction” that ultimately drives economic growth.