strengthen the position of europe in the growing global competition. standardisation in payment transactions remain an important topic for the escb and not just for the ecb. the implementation of monetary policy and a satisfactorily functioning economy require efficient payment systems. according to article 3 of the escb ’ s statute, one of the functions of the escb is therefore to promote the smooth functioning of the payment systems. article 22 of the escb ’ s statute actually gives the future ecb the right to make regulations to ensure efficient and sound clearing and payment systems within the community and with other countries. to that extent there may be a fairly reasonable distribution of functions within the escb in line with the subsidiarity principle laid down in the maastricht treaty. the ecb and the national central banks could be asked to act as intermediaries or coordinators for the banking industry in standardisation matters concerning payments. the fact that central banks may also be seen by the banking industry to be competitors in some cases, namely in large - value payment systems, has not proved to be a problem so far. providing a service of a neutral nature in relation to the various banking groups has always been a function of the central banks. the banking industry and the national central banks have cooperated successfully for years to devise and implement rules and systems for executing payments. i am therefore optimistic that the industry will continue to do this in cooperation with the ecb in future. the way the preparatory work for payment systems in stage 3 of monetary union has gone so far confirms my opinion. let us therefore meet the challenges that lie before us with enthusiasm and confidence. ladies and gentlemen, i expect that this seminar will provide important insights into the possibilities of improved cooperation in the field of standardisation between the eu commission, the european banking associations and the central depositories, on the one hand, and the future escb, on the other. i am convinced that the undisputed objective of an efficient european financial market cannot be achieved without successful standardisation.

populist parties more than two thirds see globalisation as a threat. public concerns like these need to be taken seriously. it can ’ t be denied that globalisation puts particular pressure on certain groups of people. although open markets boost prosperity overall, they don ’ t necessarily boost it for all people all of the time. but it ’ s also safe to say that barriers and exclusion would be the wrong response to these concerns. in advanced economies, low - skilled workers feel the pressure of globalisation, particularly those who work in industry sectors that are exposed to low - cost competitors from abroad. and that ’ s why inclusive growth is so important. in order to have more inclusive growth, however, we need to ensure that enterprises and their employees are properly equipped to harness the opportunities presented by globalisation and technological progress and that they are able to manage structural change. i already mentioned the need for a favourable business environment. that means, for example, less red tape, limits to increasing social - security contributions or creating innovation - friendly conditions by an efficient product market regulation. investment in education and lifelong learning are important for improving employees ’ adaptability to a changing environment. people who lose their job have to be able to find another position swiftly. and a target driven and transparent tax and transfer system is able to act as a cushion for those who are not able to benefit from new job creation. policy must help those who lose from globalisation, and the positive effects of trade should provide scope for such policies. regarding the second great achievement of the g20, i am somewhat concerned, too. while, on the one hand, the regulatory agenda has not been completed yet, calls for de - regulation are on the rise again. i already mentioned basel iii. i ’ m fully aware that the implementation of the new standards is challenging for banks worldwide. but the new standards have significantly improved the capital adequacy of the banking system and have made the global financial system more stable. and although banks sometimes criticise the higher capital requirements, a more stable financial system is beneficial for them as well – as greater stability is also reflected in lower funding costs. nevertheless, in contrast to the original plans, there was no final agreement on basel iii last year. while most of the residual work has been completed, one important issue still remains unresolved. this is the question of how far credit institutions should be permitted to use their own internal models to determine their capital adequacy requirements for credit risk –