Domestic policymakers have greater understanding of the local economic and financial conditions, with the necessary experience in dealing with countryspecific circumstances. In this regard, multilateral institutions must respect that individual countries, as independent institutions, have made the tough but necessary choices after careful and deliberate considerations. Multilateral institutions possess great breadth of cross-country information to dispense prescription for its member countries. But there is no such thing as a ‘one-pill-cures-all’ remedy. Instead, tailored policy responses are essential given the unique and diverse nature of emerging economies. As the world becomes increasingly more integrated and harmonised, we welcome the value of global coordination and interaction if it adds to the betterment of society at large. But where peculiarities exist, member institutions ought to be given the space to exercise their autonomy. We must also avoid the rush towards greater cross-country standardisation that impinge on policy flexibility or where policies are judged based on pre-subscribed narrow definitions, theories and concepts rather than the actual outcomes. The never-ending debate on the categorisation of policies as capital flow management measures or macro prudential policies is one such contention. In an increasingly integrated and complex environment, the impact of shocks varies between countries. The policy would also vary. Even if policies are similar, the outcomes might be different. The work of multilateral institutions becomes even more difficult and complex. For instance, any mis-categorisation of policy could prematurely reverse the effectiveness of that policy, given the impact it might have on investor perception and sentiment.
Frankly, it’s too early to tell: we know the final rate of inflation, 2%; but we don’t know yet the « terminal interest rate », or the policy rates that will ensure a timely return of inflation to our target, while seeing no reasons for increased expectations on these. Let me rather give some light on the first part of the journey, the normalisation till neutral rate; for sure it’s unobservable, but this one can be estimated, in the euro area at below or close to 2% according to me. I sometimes use a simple metaphor: as long as it is about lifting off the accelerator, we have to act for sure, in a determined but orderly way, and we should be there by the end of the year. Afterwards, the question could come of pressing the brake, and tightening if needed: but this part of the journey remains today an open question, and will deserve further assessment and reflection, in due time. Let me only stress one last and obvious point of yesterday’s decision: it marks the return of interest rates in positive territory. This historical step brings with it multiple dimensions that need to be revisited: on our operational framework, on our TLTRO operations, on our remuneration mechanisms of bank’s reserves. This is a matter that, as Christine Lagarde said yesterday, we will take up without delay. May I add that with a long view, monetary policy cannot be the only game in town?