Without sufficient social acceptance this debate will obviously not even be joined, so it is very important to clearly underline the objectives pursued which I’ve repeated ad nauseam in this speech, but which I shall attempt to express again in a different way so as not to tire you. We should all agree that the best protection against unemployment is not that which concerns itself with subsidising the unemployed, but that which ensures that the majority do not lose their job. We should admit that it is useful to allow employers to improve their productivity because that way we will see higher real wage growth. And, finally, we should let workers take the opportunity to switch to better-paid jobs without losing a substantial part of their protection in the event that they lose such jobs. You will have realised that my approach to the debate on labour market reform is far removed from that of those who confine it to the question of whether or not to lower dismissal costs. In my view it is a mistake to debate cheaper firing alone, and I believe that we can only make headway if we focus on finding formulae that allow us to increase productivity, to reduce the numbers of unemployed and to improve workers' wages. The fact that Spain is today more advanced than other European countries in many areas that I mentioned at the start of my speech should not let us forget that there are still some fields in which we can learn from others.
It is precisely this attitude of having learnt from others, and made the consequent reforms, which largely explains the positive performance of the Spanish economy in recent decades. In my opinion, the time has come to do the same (to learn and to reform) with labour market institutions which, as systematically stated by international organisations, are the major structural difference remaining between us and the more developed countries. We must acknowledge that the task is not an easy one. Apart from convincing people about their necessity, something historians and economists can help do, the skills of many others will be needed to design and implement the reforms. One thorny issue is how to set some changes in motion immediately and, at the same time, be sensitive to what may be seen as an alteration of established rights. Political acuity is crucial to resolve these problems, as indeed it is also to make the interests of the different groups of workers compatible with each other. But it should also reassure us to know that the reform toolbox is full of possibilities: calendars, compensation, incentives, etc. Lawyers also have an important job to do, since the problem with all structural reforms is that they alter the status quo and, accordingly, it is essential to find legal formulae that circumvent the obstacles that may arise in their approval and implementation.