Once a month, immediately after the meeting of the Governing Council, the President of the ECB holds a press conference- which starts with a precise exposition of the diagnosis of the Governing Council which is immediately made available in real time on the ECB website. This will be the case when we will meet next Wednesday in Frankfurt. It is extremely important to stress that the Eurosystem was the first in the world to introduce, on the 1st January 1999, the concept of regular, frequent, real-time transparency in the domain of monetary policy. This illustrates the extent to which some criticisms are profoundly unjust! It is especially noteworthy, in this regard, that soon after we had embarked upon this new concept of real-time transparency, other important central banks decided to go along the same path. Being accountable for an independent institution in a modern democracy or, as it is the case for the Eurosystem, in a subtle set of democracies like the European Union, means being accountable to public opinion at large. In this respect, the public speeches and testimonies of the President of the ECB for the benefit of both European institutions and public opinion, the public speeches and testimonies of the Governors of the National Central Banks to national institutions and public opinion, are crucial. Explaining tirelessly the reasons and the reasoning that underpin the decisions of the Governing Council is a key part of our  2  BIS Review 28/2001  collective duty.
Indeed, by urging governments to aim at a fiscal position “close to balance or in surplus” in the medium term, the pact enables them to let fiscal deficits increase during recessions without exceeding the 3% reference value. In short, it allows them to create a fiscal buffer during normal economic periods that can be drawn on to counter economic divergences or asymmetric shocks. To summarise that overall issue, the “Optimal Currency Area” theory has frequently been called upon by economists who criticized EMU and expressed concerns about giving up the exchange-rate policy instrument as a response to asymmetric shocks - in particular to asymmetric shocks within a monetary union. I would like to point out, first, that one of the most remarkable effect of the European integration has been the increasing symmetry of shocks. Second, Professor Mundell himself, in support of EMU, made an interesting clarification at the beginning of 1998: in the event of a shift in demand from one member country to another, creating unemployment in the first and inflationary pressure in the second, flexible exchange rates would not be able to solve the problem. I quote: “If the argument for devaluation were valid, it could be applied to every state or sub-region in any country, with a proliferation of new currencies, so they could be devalued!”.