The best, and perhaps the only, antidote to these problems is institutionalised transparency; promoting a regular, public debate on sustainable government finances at the national level. This was the Riksbank’s approach ahead of Sweden’s referendum on the euro. We recommended in this context a model that drew on the experience we have gained from conducting a monetary policy with definite, clear targets, consistent openness regarding background material such as forecasts and regular and open assessments and debates. 2  BIS Review 2/2005  Key steps in this regard could be taken by any country that wants to do so. But increased support could also be provided by way of common decisions at European level. Technically, the Excessive Deficit Protocol already contains an explicit commitment to create national institutions with a view to developing a fiscal policy framework. The EU leaders can now realise this commitment. We can also learn from each other in this process. The Commission was quick to perform benchmarking of budget systems in different countries back in the early 1990s. This was of use to Sweden when we reformed our budget process after the crisis in the early 1990s. The Commission could start up this work again. Countries could be studied, compared and put under the spotlight if they have poor fiscal policy institutions. In this way the national debates could be influenced. Allow me now to conclude with one general reflection in relation to my introductory comments.
Many of us had hoped that the EMU project would be able to contribute to a faster change of our economies in a growth-oriented direction. In some countries there has also been less focus on shortterm stabilisation policy issues - if interest rates are 25 basis points up or down - which are not significant in the long run for economic performance, and more on long-term questions that are crucial to growth and prosperity. Comments from the Commission and the ECOFIN council have also had the desired effect in a number of countries. Policies have been put on the right course. But the exact opposite tendency exists in other countries. The problems are being shifted on to monetary policy, which is being conducted at such a distance that the decision-makers can be blamed without repercussions. Politicians have also tried to take advantage of the situation domestically by making it appear that they are not bowing to Brussels. The crucial issue for EMU in the period ahead is which of the two approaches will gain the upper hand. If the first approach prevails it will go well. But if the second approach dominates the opposite will be the case. So the trick is to find a system for governance that pulls in the first direction; that focuses both national and European debates and policies on the real issues. Thank you.