It has come back to a significant degree. Before the crisis, some argued that these patterns could be due to common shocks, convergence of monetary policy frameworks, and increased credibility of those frameworks. However, case studies, comparisons of the pre- and post-  3  crisis periods, and other observations make it more and more plausible that global financial integration is the main driver. The bottom line is that it is becoming more difficult to conduct independent monetary policy in small, open, and financially integrated economies, and although a flexible exchange rate is a necessary condition for doing so, it might not be sufficient, especially when we factor in the financial stability aspects. This, I think, is why we find on occasion that we are closer to facing a dilemma than a trilemma. I think it is still a trilemma, but with trade-offs of variable severity.2 What can individual countries do about this? First, those that have the option can enter a monetary union. That has its own pros and cons, as you all know very well. But for a SOE were the MU constitutes the biggest trading partner, issues of excess exchange rate volatility and domestic currency mismatches become much less pronounced. Second, they can give up on independent monetary policy while maintaining their own currency by either pegging the exchange rate or pegging interest rates to those of global rate setters. The problem with the first is that, as history shows, it can be difficult to maintain with free capital movements.
The problem with both is that other policies, such as fiscal policy, will then have to take care of domestic economic stabilisation. But will they? Third, they can use FX intervention to reduce the effect of volatile capital flows on the exchange rate. Fourth, they can increase resilience and the ability to live with exchange rate fluctuations (reduce the fear of floating) by strengthening financial regulation and supervision or employing macroprudential tools. Fifth, if everything else fails, they can introduce tools aimed directly at the financial integration part in order to regain greater monetary independence and shift the effect of monetary policy more to the interest rate channel and towards the non-traded goods sector. These so-called capital flow management measures are probably most needed when countries are faced with large capital inflows at the same time as domestic conditions warrant significantly higher interest rates than among core rate setters. In Iceland, we have used many of these tools in recent years. We have used FX intervention to reduce short-term exchange rate fluctuations and, in recent years, to lean against strong appreciation pressures. We have introduced a liquidity coverage ratio and a net stable funding ratio in foreign currencies. In 2016 we were faced with strong capital inflows that flattened the yield curve as the policy rate was being increased and more was signalled. We then introduced a special 2  Rey (2013) and Obstfeld (2015) analyse this issue and provide somewhat different views on whether it is a dilemma or a trilemma.