To August, the central government, Social Security and regional government budget outturn evidenced a deficit of 4.3% of GDP, a 0.3 pp improvement on the same period the previous year. To meet the deficit target requires an improvement of 0.8 pp of GDP over the year as a whole; accordingly, the increase in revenue and/or the containment of spending in the final four months of the year will need to be greater than that recorded between January and August. This greater effort should be concentrated at the regional government level where, on the information available, the risks of slippage are located. For 2015, the Budgetary Plan sets a budget deficit target of 4.2% of GDP, 1.3 pp of GDP below that for 2014. In terms of the different agents, the reduction in net borrowing would amount to 1 pp of GDP in the case of central government and the Social Security system, while the regional governments should adjust their fiscal imbalance by 0.3 pp of GDP and local governments should run a balanced budget. In 2015, the improvement in the cyclical position and the reduction in government debt yields will contribute to enhancing public finances. On the estimates available, meeting the deficit target for the coming year will require a budgetary adjustment drive, measured by the change in the primary structural balance, that is appreciably less than that made in previous years. Overall, what we have is a more favourable macroeconomic scenario for the adjustment than that in place in 2012 and 2013.
For instance, such systems would render the reconciliation of transaction and balance data between banks and a third-party system obsolete. The paradigm seems to have been turned on its head: decentralisation – not centralisation – now appears to promise the greatest efficiency gains. I do not, however, believe that decentralisation will become the ‘new normal’ in all financial market functions and infrastructures. Many existing financial market infrastructures are already highly competitive, and barriers to entry for new technology are correspondingly high. The conventional, centralised model they are built on is already low-cost and meets high safety standards. And improvements are being made all the time. Distributed ledger technology, meanwhile, has yet to prove it can outperform the existing set-up with respect to safety and efficiency. Having said this, there may be some scope for deploying distributed ledgers in certain complex financial market functions or infrastructures. The settlement and safekeeping of securities is one example. In the end, we may well see conventional and new technologies coexisting or blending. Staying with the securities example: it is conceivable that we will see a hybrid scenario. This could entail security-specific information being settled via a distributed ledger, while the payment leg could continue to be effected via a traditional, centralised payment system. 4 5  6  7  Cf. Diana Chan, Florence Fontan, Simonetta Rosati and Daniela Russo, ‘The Securities Custody Industry’, European Central Bank, Occasional Paper Series, No. 68, August 2007.