explanations in determining cross - country differences in the overall level of development. i am confident that these lessons feed into improving domestic policy - making in emerging market economies, making them more resilient to withstand shocks. the continued efforts to strengthen imf surveillance play also a crucial role in that respect. it is clear that crisis prevention must remain the key area of all our efforts. crises are costly for the countries concerned and also for the international system. given the increasing economic and financial importance of emerging markets, major events in these countries are bound to have spill - over effects to the rest of the world. let me underpin this argument with some figures : in the last four years, major emerging markets contributed to about half of global real gdp growth ( in ppp terms ), accounted for roughly 30 % of world exports and received about 20 % of global fdi. turning to crisis management, important lessons have been learnt. there has been a growing recognition that more predictability is required on the side of the official sector in order to set the right incentives for all the actors involved. moral hazard concerns and the limited availability of official funds also led to increasing discussions about the appropriate involvement of the private sector in crisis management. of course, every single crisis is different and hence there is in each case the need to find the appropriate balance in the triangle of domestic adjustment, private sector involvement and official support. therefore, crisis management in practice still has to struggle with the inherent tension between rules and clarity on the one hand and discretion and flexibility on the other. however, considerable progress has been achieved. first, specific criteria and procedures have been set up last year to make exceptional access to fund resources subject to rules and hence more predictable. we in europe have been very much in favour of setting such clear rules and clear limits to fund financing in view of the very large financing packages provided to countries in the 1990s. the imf ’ s debt sustainability analysis will play an important role in that context, since clear limits to official financing must be respected especially when a country faces an unsustainable debt burden and hence requires a debt restructuring. all imf shareholders now need to stick by these rules, not least in order to provide the right signals to the markets and to avoid the impression that the official sector suffers from time inconsistency between the approval of policy principles and their actual implementation. second, following mexico ’ s bond issue with collective action clauses ( cacs ) in february 2003, several emerging markets included ca

kincaid readability test a literacy grade level and % of population proficient at each level are based on us data. experts ’ attempts to make themselves heard is also made more difficult by the changing landscape of trust. the age of deference is certainly over. the edelman trust barometer for 2017 finds that in two - thirds of countries, less than 50 % trust mainstream institutions of business, government, media and ngos to do what is right. it is important to note that measuring trust is perilous because reliable longitudinal data is scarce and when available does not show a clearly declining trend in all areas. the current “ crisis of trust ” is often attributed to the great recession of 2008 and has been compounded by the adverse side effects of globalization and technology as well as numerous high profile examples of untrustworthy behavior by politicians, banks and various institutions. the response to this lack of trust in institutions has been to look elsewhere. “ a person like yourself ” is now as credible as an academic or technical expert, and far more credible than a ceo or a government official – reflecting a shift in trust toward family and friends that we have witnessed on social media. an agenda for rebuilding trustworthiness we need expertise more than ever to solve the world ’ s problems. but we are in a time where confidence in experts is at an all - time low. many are trying to think of ways to restore trust in experts and institutions. in her very thoughtful reith lectures, onora o ’ neill was skeptical that requiring ever greater transparency ( “ it seems no information about an institution and profession is too boring or routine to remain unpublished ” ) and edelman trust barometer ( 2017 ). all speeches are available online at www. bankofengland. co. uk / speeches imposing ever more box ticking accountability would work. transparency is not good enough if information is inaccessible and unassessible. instead, we should focus more on increasing trustworthiness. societies have two ways of doing this : ( 1 ) legislation, regulation or guidance that set standards often accompanied by requirements to check compliance and ( 2 ) providing information that empowers individuals to assess trustworthiness for themselves. what could this look like? in this final section i will sketch out the elements of an agenda that could enhance the trustworthiness of experts. 1. experts should embrace uncertainty as was once so eloquently put by mervyn king, experts must resist the pressure for “ an illusion of certainty ”. bertrand russell once