crisis, which was about to hit greece as well, would be deep and of a structural nature, adding that overcoming that crisis would require a long, methodical and painstaking effort, given that imbalances and structural rigidities accumulated over several years had to be urgently addressed. by late 2008, it had become evident that the implementation of a multiannual programme was needed in order to reduce the fiscal deficit, control debt dynamics and carry out extensive structural reforms which would boost the economy ’ s weak competitiveness. however, the policies adopted were timid, even though markets had started moving towards an overall reassessment of credit risk that did not preclude a greek default, therefore imposing new, more onerous lending conditions. by early 2010 it was no longer possible to cover the deficits with financing from the markets. in greece, the international financial crisis was evolving into a sovereign debt crisis. in april 2010 the greek government submitted to the euro area countries and the imf a request for financial support, and in may the first memorandum of economic and financial policies was signed. this triggered a process of sharp economic adjustment in order to avoid default and lay the groundwork for rebalancing the economy. this process, currently at an advanced stage, has not been linear or painless. for one, it had not been clear from the outset that the country could indeed achieve an orderly adjustment. this is why an exit from the euro area was often presented as looming or unavoidable. moreover, the conduct of economic policy during that period was subject to critical swings between the consistent implementation of the adjustment programme and hesitation due to political cost considerations. in such a climate, significant modifications had to be made to the original agreements with our partners, in order to make up for implementation delays or errors in initial forecasts. fortunately, collapse and exit from the euro area were prevented, thanks to the society ’ s choice in favour of the country ’ s future within the euro area, the assistance provided by our partners, and the efforts of successive governments. thus, today we can look forward to the future with greater confidence, as we can expect that the economy will recover and, under certain conditions, will enter into a new, virtuous circle. the economic and social costs of the adjustment have been and remain heavy. the citizens ’ sacrifices have been very painful. however, losses in terms of output, employment and incomes have been the price that had to be paid to prevent a collapse

do not have a ration card or a bpl card ; teachers do not show up at schools to teach ; the police do not register crimes, or encroachments, especially if committed by the rich and powerful ; public hospitals are not adequately staffed and ostensibly free medicines are not available at the dispensary ; … i can go on, but you know the all - too - familiar picture. this is where the crooked but savvy politician fits in. while the poor do not have the money to “ purchase ” public services that are their right, they have a vote that the politician wants. the politician does a little bit to make life a little more tolerable for his poor constituents – a government job here, an fir registered there, a land right honoured somewhere else. for this, he gets the gratitude of his voters, and more important, their vote. of course, there are many politicians who are honest and genuinely want to improve the lot of their voters. but perhaps the system tolerates corruption because the street smart politician is better at making the wheels of the bureaucracy creak, however slowly, in favour of his constituents. and such a system is self - sustaining. an idealist who is unwilling to “ work ” the system can promise to reform it, but the voters know there is little one person can do. moreover, who will provide the patronage while the idealist is fighting the system? so why not stay with the fixer you know even if it means the reformist loses his deposit? so the circle is complete. the poor and the under - privileged need the politician to help them get jobs and public services. the crooked politician needs the businessman to provide the funds that allow him to supply patronage to the poor and fight elections. the corrupt businessman needs the crooked politician to get public resources and contracts cheaply. and the politician needs the votes of the poor and the underprivileged. every constituency is tied to the other in a cycle of dependence, which ensures that the status quo prevails. well - meaning political leaders and governments have tried, and are trying, to break this vicious cycle. how do we get more politicians to move from “ fixing ” the system to reforming the system? the obvious answer is to either improve the quality of public services or reduce the public ’ s dependence on them. both approaches are necessary. but then how does one improve the quality of public services? the typical answer has been to increase the resources