Therefore, concluding that real income developments before the onset of the crisis were in line with unconditional convergence theory would simply be spurious. Since the onset of the crisis positive income convergence trends were first reversed in many of the countries in the region and, when convergence reappeared, its pace was significantly slower 3  than at the beginning of the 2000s. At the current pace of convergence, most countries in the region would need decades to reach German, Austrian or Swedish levels of income, countries that are often referred to as the benchmark for the CEE region. Which, in a way, brings us to the notion of conditional convergence. The theory of conditional convergence implies that if there are persistent differences across countries in preferences and other institutional features, divergence is possible in terms of both levels of income and growth rates. And the last crisis has reminded us of this quite roughly. Just take a look at the countries of Europe's periphery. The average level of income of Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal in 2016 was only at around 67% of the German income, compared to 80% at the beginning of the millennium. Similarly, in Croatia, Slovenia or, to a lesser extent, also the Czech Republic, the relative level of income in 2016 was lower than in 2008. Therefore, growth and convergence can be held back for a protracted period of time before they reappear, or forces can even work in an opposite direction, leading to divergence.
And although our instruments have changed our conviction and mission have not. Some might wish that we use our armoury for other purposes. But we will not be moved. We are an independent institution. Our rules are non-negotiable and we do not act for the benefit of interest groups or individual countries. Nor can financial stability considerations override our primary objective. Monetary dominance will always prevail. BIS central bankers’ speeches  5