european commission, potential growth in the euro area is at around 1 % today. it was almost twice that in the years before the crisis. and we think that structural and fiscal policy must be used wherever there is scope to do so, in terms of both quantity and quality. but it is not the ecb ’ s role to go into detail about what governments should do. the founding treaties are explicit and give us different roles. the idea that the central bank should be the gendarme of economic policy among euro area countries simply doesn ’ t work. even though, in the past, the ecb didn ’ t seem too shy about going into such detail? there is a european tradition – different in this respect from, say, the u. s. – of central bankers being more outspoken, when they feel it can be useful. at the ecb, we feel it is legitimate to speak our mind and explain what is needed to make the euro work better. but what we can ’ t and shouldn ’ t do is go into the detail of what should be government policy. mario draghi, in his last press conference, described the concept of “ helicopter money ” – the idea that the central bank could finance economic agents directly – as “ very interesting ”. is that something the ecb is debating? bis central bankers ’ speeches no. as an economist, of course i find the academic discussion exciting. it is good that academics force us to think outside the box. but as a policymaker, as interesting as it may be, helicopter money is not currently part of the discussion in the governing council. if we decided to get into that discussion, we would have to deal with many questions, such as : how exactly would it work in practice? how would “ helicopter money ” fit within our monetary policy? and finally and most importantly, how do we make sure it doesn ’ t cross the line between monetary and fiscal policy? to be honest, i don ’ t see how it could work without some kind of risk - sharing with governments, which could be practically and legally problematic. so whatever my own intellectual interest in helicopter money, as a governing council member i have a fair deal of skepticism and circumspection. so we ’ re not near the point where the ecb could, for example, decide to finance by itself the big public investment boost it has been calling for? say, by lending €100 billion or more to the european investment bank ( eib )?

needed, even when it was unpopular to do so. but in the end, it cannot be just the standards that have made a difference. instead, we do recognize that the market has – to a large extent although not absolutely always – conducted itself in a prudent and professional manner. it is this combination of prudential governance and market conduct that has gotten us this far. as a community, we clearly value it. it is to our best interest to sustain and also find ways to enhance it. final thoughts at the beginning of my remarks, i said i had two words … i have only given you one – divergence. let me conclude with the second word – convergence. in this divergent world, where each is driven by his own bottom line considerations, we come to realize that there is no exercise that does not leave us short of breath. whether it is a proactive effort or an intervention to address parochial concern, the intention to make us better requires deliberate effort. there is no short cut to this and there cannot be easy wins if it is longer term competitiveness that is our objective. strength is achieved, not granted. reforms are consciously laid out, not wantonly enforced. our efforts therefore need to converge towards purposeful reforms. if we value what we see around us in the industry today, let us actively find ways to improve ourselves and our operating environment. we are all vested parties and the future is a collective interest. this is the message i would like to share with all of you today. be part of the pro - active change. reforms are never convenient. but, with the right mix, they make us better. indeed, we must find convergence in this divergent world we operate in. bis central bankers ’ speeches