gender equality has many facets, and i have touched upon several. generally speaking, there are three things which, for me, are inseparably linked to this issue : first, equality doesn ’ t only mean rights. for every right there is an obligation. therefore, having the same rights means having the same obligations. it ’ s not just about cherry - picking, if i can put it like that. women who demand complete gender equality must also be ready to take on responsibility. second, gender equality doesn ’ t only concern a career - minded elite. it concerns everyone. so it ’ s not just about female quotas for supervisory boards and executive boards. it ’ s not just about gender - neutral phrasing in legal texts. all that is of relatively little benefit to most women. for the majority it must mean more flexible working hours, respectful treatment, appropriate pay, better child care – just to mention a few things. third, equality ultimately concerns one thing : freedom. every individual should live exactly how she or he wants to. that also means we have to be tolerant of different lifestyles. we have to be tolerant of women ( and men ) who see being at home with the family as a calling ; we have to be tolerant of women who see a career as a calling ; and we have to be tolerant of women who claim both for themselves : family and career. and tolerance isn ’ t the whole story : women with different lifestyles should display solidarity. they should never let themselves make comments like “ she ’ s only a housewife ” or “ she neglected her children for her career ”. despite all this, there ’ s one point we should put on record : basically it ’ s a good sign for us in germany that, when it comes to gender equality, the discussion is usually, though not always, about careers. it means that in other areas we have evidently come a long way. to realise that, it ’ s enough just to look at other countries – in africa, for instance. there are areas where women live in terrible conditions – adolf lette would still be a progressive reformer there 2 / 3 bis central bankers'speeches today. we must therefore not only look beyond our personal horizons but also beyond our national horizons. from a global perspective, the issue of gender equality has quite a different meaning. nevertheless, gender equality is also making progress at a global level. for instance, the world economic forum ’ s global gender gap report covers the

also have a distributive function – the third part of musgrave ’ s taxonomy. i see this as an appropriate role for a euro area fiscal union to play. we have witnessed several examples in recent years of multinationals arbitraging tax systems to pay less than their fair share to society. we have also witnessed the possibility for cross - border tax evasion from wealthy individuals. a more cooperative approach to tax policy could counteract this and would be in the interest of all countries. it would also be a timely reminder to citizens of how the union can defend their interests. it goes without saying, however, that there is too much diversity on the wider questions of distribution for these to be answered at the european level in the medium term. to sum up : a functioning banking union reduces the need for the stabilisation function of a fiscal union, but not to zero. greater efforts should be invested in the allocation function. conclusion ladies and gentlemen, i have laid out what i see as a realistic medium - term vision for the euro area, which combines the twin needs : cooperation and diversity. european commission ( 2012 ), “ taxation of cross - border dividends within the eu ”. s. bond et al ( 2000 ), “ corporate tax harmonisation in europe : a guide to the debate ”, institute for fiscal studies. bis central bankers ’ speeches but for the euro area to prosper, we also need a third concept : responsibility. as we are all in the same boat, every country has a responsibility to pull its weight. diversity is welcome but it cannot become a shield against change. having lived here for two years, i would not be as pessimistic as barry eichengreen, who in a recent commentary wrote : “ and the biggest problem is yet to come, namely an italy that is unable to grow, incapable of reforming, and burdened with what increasingly looks like an unsustainable debt. ” 7 indeed, the euro area cannot prosper if its third largest economy has a potential growth rate of zero. italy has to grow, and this will not happen by waiting for the cycle to turn. the challenges for italy are long - term and the solution is structural. we need only look at the trends to see this : its real growth rate was 5 % in the 1950s, 4 % in the 1960s, 3 % in the 1970s, 2 % in the 1980s, 1 % in the 1990s, and 0 % in the