In Scandinavia and the Benelux countries, the pressing need for economies of scale has forced major banks to look beyond their domestic markets for partnerships, and cross-border mergers have been common. In Singapore, the same thing is already happening in the telecommunications industry. The Government has decided to allow, and indeed to encourage, dominant local players like Singapore Telecom to go beyond foreign acquisitions, to seek foreign mergers. As Singapore banks increasingly confront the same imperative, we will have to consider exactly how far we are willing to trade off retaining a few Singaporean-controlled banks against the logic of globalisation. Conclusion The Asian crisis has led to a rethink of the consensus in favour of globalisation and free capital flows. The result has been to reaffirm the logic of globalisation, and the value of free markets and free trade. But it has also caused a more sober appreciation of the risks of international flows of capital, and clarified the necessary preconditions for countries to minimise the difficulties and reap the benefits from freer capital flows. Singapore’s experience in bringing our financial sector up to best practices during and after the crisis shows how complex and delicate a task it is, despite Singapore’s relatively strong starting point. It will be even more challenging for countries in less favourable circumstances, to find their way forward in post crisis Asia. In this quest, these countries deserve the full support of the international community. 9  BIS Review 76/2000
These effects can be achieved at the zero lower bound8 and in conditions of a debt overhang9. The key issue is therefore which set of forces dominates. And what matters here is not whether structural reforms are implemented, but how. This is where two further lessons of the crisis come in, which relate to our experience in Europe during the crisis: both the pace and the composition of reforms matter crucially for achieving positive effects in the shortterm. Why the pace of reforms matters Before the crisis there was an active debate about the appropriate pace of reform implementation, which had its origins in the liberalisation of Central and Eastern European economies in the 1990s. Some argued that reform was best conducted through a “big bang” approach, while others argued for more gradual reform implementation.10 More recently, studies of reform implementation had suggested that outcomes might be better if reforms were sequenced, with product market reforms preceding labour market reforms, so that lower mark-ups can support the purchasing power of households.11 There was also a political economy argument in favour of gradualism: as governments have a fixed amount of political capital, they would be most effective if they allocated their scarce resources to one set of reforms at a time. These arguments were however not always applicable to the euro area as, again, they lacked our specific context.