economy is high in most of the rankings concerning the investment or offshoring 4 attractiveness, whereas our chief advantages include a favourable location, a large market, and well - qualified and relatively cheap workforce. therefore, owing to the process of globalization of manufacturing and services, poland may stand a chance of rapid growth, provided that our chief shortcomings, including the poor advancement in e - economy and e - administration, are remedied. we cannot afford inertia for other countries are quickly building modern e - economy. a. blinder “ fear of offshoring ”, ceps working paper no. 119, december 2005. this and many other examples are available in “ the word is flat, a brief history of the twenty - first century ” by thomas friedman published in 2005. b. van ark “ europe ’ s productivity gap : catching up or getting stuck?, ” the article prepared for the international symposium on productivity, competitiveness and globalisation, banque de france, paris, november 4, 2005 ; r. mcguckin, m. spiegelman, b. van ark : the retail revolution - can europe match u. s. productivity performance?, ” the conference board, march 2005 ; and “ deepening the lisbon agenda, studies on productivity, services, technologies, ” the report prepared by the federal ministry of labour and economy of austria, published in january 2006. for instance, the report by a. t. kearney ’ s consulting company “ offshore location attractiveness index, making offshore decisions ” published in 2004. three categories of indices were evaluated : the financial structure ( labour, infrastructure, tax and regulation costs ) with a weight of 40 %, the skills and availability of employees ( cumulated experience in business activities, ability to easily employ the staff, command of foreign languages and qualifications, social indices, e. g. the rate of unemployment ) with a weight of 30 %, business environment ( state ’ s conditions, infrastructure, ability to adapt to differed cultures and the protection of intellectual property ) with a weight of 30 %. in the new global economy, the public sector must be active and innovative, and it must support its citizens and business community. by way of illustration, the national bank of poland, as part of its statutory tasks and in cooperation with its partners in the financial sector, has created a modern payment infrastructure for large - amount ( the sorbnet system operated by nbp ) and retail ( the elixi

with the uk ’ s icas regime. solvency ii recognises many of the principles that form the basis of that regime, and therefore introduces a level playing field with the rest of the eu. risk - based capital standards and robust valuation practices ensure resilience against unexpected losses. the enhanced disclosure rules in turn aim to encourage the effective exercise of market discipline through increased provision of information. our approach to third country branches will aim to ensure that they are operating to standards that give branch policyholders an equivalent level of protection to policyholders of an eea - headquartered undertaking. the three pillars of solvency ii not only provide a robust foundation to support the safety, soundness and resilience of individual insurers, but also in turn support stability in the system. the financial services sector is more interconnected than ever before. risks to the financial system can affect all firms ; we therefore need to ensure that our analysis is rigorous not just within sectors but at a cross - sectoral level. with a number of mixed financial groups undertaking insurance, banking, asset management and any number of other activities in bis central bankers ’ speeches multiple locations across continents, it is vital for firms and regulators alike to understand the interconnections and dependencies not only between different firms but within them as well. this is just one reason why it is so crucial to get the new regime right. the introduction of consolidated group supervision under solvency ii will ensure supervisors and firms have greater clarity in their overall view of group business, and are able to recognise and therefore manage risks that would not otherwise be visible. in particular, we will be able to look across groups to ensure that they have adequate resources, even if risks are being transferred to group companies located in countries with different regulatory regimes, such as offshore centres. and we will be alert to regulatory arbitrage, such as where risk transfer through reinsurance is negated through sliding scale commissions. the financial crisis, and the post - crisis regulatory reform agenda, have taught us many lessons. the business models of insurers and banks are different, but those lessons have informed and will continue to inform how we manage the implementation of solvency ii. perhaps most salient for this conference, is the difficult lessons we have learned from experience with insurers and banks when it comes to the use of internal models. many of you in this room will be acutely aware of the demands of the solvency ii model approval process. this rigour has a purpose