This is why our focus should be on the Eurozone economic governance and coordination. We know there is deep political resistance to sharing fiscal resources and sovereignty, as well as a rising Euroscepticism. This is why we need to make the economic case. This discussion is not about “more Brussels”, but it is very concretely about more growth and jobs in Europe. The euro crisis has revealed how unprepared we were. The absence of coordination has indeed a genuine economic cost. Several approaches point to a significant cost of noncoordination, in the order of 2 to 5 % of GDP since the crisis, and therefore millions of jobs. To bring the debate forward, some principled choices have to be made. First: making parallel progress on both domestic reforms and, [not “or”], European coordination. This is the cornerstone of, for instance, any French-German agreement: to be fair, the French call for Germany to support coordination, and the German doubt about French reforms, have been and are still well-founded. This requires overcoming distrust between countries and bringing together both aspects under the same umbrella, namely a common institution. Second, we must recognize that institutions with a mandate are superior to rules without institutions, as underlined by Mario Draghi while discussing the fundamental difference between a monetary policy institution and fiscal rules. To bolster policy consistency and coordination, we admittedly need simpler rules. But they should be supported by strong institutions with discretionary powers.
Building an efficient financing and investment union for tomorrow  We need to improve investment financing in the EU. Our efforts should be directed towards financing growth and innovation, and towards finding the right mix between debt and equity financing, while still preserving financial stability and consumer protection. In the EU, the European Commission has launched the Investment Plan – so called Juncker Plan – and the Capital Markets Union (CMU). Until now, these initiatives have shown results, but they are not enough. A more ambitious approach would bring together the CMU, the Banking Union and the Juncker Plan. This is why I suggest to think of a Financing and Investment Union. It is essential to clarify two objectives: (i) the diversification of financing for firms, and (ii) the strengthening of the euro area. As we argued in our joint article with Jens Weidmann in February, this Financing and Investment Union – including more equity financing – seems to be the best way to match the abundance of savings and the lack of appropriate investment financing. First, let’s focus on the diversification of financing. The starting point should be firms’ needs. New financing of business investment, which is one of the keys to innovation, must be enabled. There should be above all, more equity financing. •  It is an essential fact that the equity share of corporate financing in Europe is half as large as in the United States: 52% of GDP in the EA, vs. 121% in the US.