On the one hand their external debt is high

What is your level of concern for countries of Eastern presented today as a weakness in the global economy

The countries of Central Europe were of the same consistent with their status as developing countries. On the one hand, their external debt is high. On the other hand, their growth is reached by consumption, itself funded by debt, and exports, largely to the European Union. A large part of their re-industrialization is made on the way of outsourcing, including automotive. It therefore now undergo a double shock. A clash of funding first, but also a shock in the automotive sector.

But it should not blacken the table. This situation is not so surprising: their dependency on foreign capital, for example, is logical because their initial capital base was very low. And do not forget that over the past ten years, with Europe, these countries have made remarkable progress in institutional matters. They, Furthermore, began to réindustrialiser, which was far from clear fifteen years ago. Finally, they receive European transfers, which largely damps the shocks.

What should be done to help them out of the crisis

Some of these economies are actually very vulnerable. This is the case of the Baltic countries and the Hungary. But the IMF supports. I think that it is desirable that it continues to intervene, as it currently is in Romania. In my view, the IMF should achieve a plan for Central Europe, with the assistance of the European Union. It is in my opinion to what it is moving. Even if there are lags in the time between all these countries, their situations are in fact quite close and their problems.

Some of these countries would like a membership accelerated the euro, believing it would protect them from the crisis. What do you think

In monetary terms, one can first see that most of the currencies of Central Europe are adjusted. Call this "devaluation" or "impairment", the fact is there. Basically it is normal, economies emerging and converging, there are processes of adjustment and that he must retain a degree of flexibility. Regarding the euro, it must obviously be that these countries retain the objective of membership. Like the integration to the European Union, is a fantastic incentive to reform. And this would allow monetary stability. But it should not do so with precipitation, against the economic reality and against the necessary adaptations.

Do you fear the political impact of the crisis in the region

It is never easy to explain to public opinion the political trade-offs which are made. But it is true that the situation is even more complicated in Central Europe, because these countries come to know deep sociological changes. This has led to the emergence of a middle class income still relatively low. It fairly well adhered to economic developments since it had. But the crisis will hit. In addition, more we are going to the East, more policy experience of this kind of economic crisis is limited.

To add to this the fact that, for once, the crisis comes from the outside. By and large, these countries have the feeling followed the liberalization instructions given and be punished by a crisis which they are not responsible. Thus appear here and there, the reactions of tension, as on the issue of bank regulation. I believe that we must understand these reactions at European level.

The situation of the Russia you inquiètet - it

The Russia is in major trouble. They arise from the greater openness of the economy. Opening that, basically, we have desired. It should be noted that the process of diversification of the Russian economy began. It is an excellent thing, even if one can regret that it is not made more quickly. Today, the Russia has two problems. The first is that most of the banks in the country financing through capital markets, in relatively satisfactory conditions. Today, this access to funding is becoming extremely difficult. Second pitfall: Russian private groups have proved to be highly indebted. Thus the exhibition of the Russian economy to the need for international refinancing proved high. It follows a difficult adjustment, particularly for the ruble. But, in contrast to the 1998 crisis, the Government intervened significantly, being necessary to avoid a collapse of the banking system.

If we now consider the crisis at the global level, are you not feel that we are treating the evil with evil After the financial system has loaned to improperly and on through, asked today to provide new loans and States strive to flood the markets of liquidity...

Since 1980, the financing of the economy is assured by intermediation banks but by markets, via désintermédiées, including simple forms

is the issuance of bonds by industrial and commercial enterprises. Today, the banks financing remains about. However, funding markets has considerably reduced. To the point that it now refers to direct funding of companies by the central banks. The problem is that banks are currently expected to do their usual work, but also compensate for market failures. They will not suffice. One of the first things to do is to restore the confidence to enable liquidity which exists to go to invest in companies, as this is done for 20 years. In the meantime, what are the States that override this function. I would therefore say that it is not in a system which aims to increase the supply of credit, but merely sought, at least, to keep it.

These rescue operations have a high cost. Is this not dangerous in the long term

Must be taken back. Some countries long welcomed their very low public debt but had a high private debt. Person is concerned. Suddenly, everyone realizes that this level of private debt does not match the future stream of income. It was at this time reached the crisis.

Currently, it is therefore override public debt to private debt. Certainly, in repeating our previous criteria, can worry: a compartment of the debt increases. But he must above all evolve our methodology: follow the public debt is important, follow the overall debt is just as much. On the bottom, in the last ten years, and I have been part of this movement, it looked likely enough the concept of global debt.

In terms of macroeconomic strategy, what are, according to you, the implications of this crisis

It leads, in my view, a strong plea for diversified economies, with good training and a good level of research, because it is this which allows adaptation and mobility. Take the example of the car: it is clear that the application has changed, that consumers want cheaper and cleaner vehicles. They are able to respond quickly to this new request countries that emerge in the best.

Another point I want to make concerns the amount of work provided by the economy. It is clear today that the US economy was living at a level which does not correspond to its workload. Earnings is not sufficient, the Americans will owe. China is an exactly opposite example, households working enormously and saving many. Today, we know that there must be a match between volume of work and level of life. When this match does not exist, there is a debt, and debt is sustainable only if it corresponds to future revenues.

Hope you, as some central bankers, a beginning of recovery in 2010

I think it's very complicated to have a clear vision to two years. There are few analysis tools, and especially no historical reference. At this stage, known only in large, by the summer, there will be no rebound. However, can be observed that, since a little more than a year, there are massive interventions, without precedent, Governments and central banks. If G20 develops the idea of a very good consultation between countries, including those concerning economic policy in the short term, can actually expect a resumption early. There are many elements on the table. There is more that a political signal to show that everything is in place, that the partition is played correctly. I am not totally pessimistic. But, yet again, the g-20 is crucial.

After the unbridled greed of the past years, it seems to turn to capitalism more austere, more "Jansenism"...

I fundamentally believe that an economy is sustainable only if it creates real value for men and women are. When we think that what is done is designed to increase his bonus, it is wrong. The individual value was never measured by a bank account. It must be measured by the value it creates for others. I lived in London for eight years and I must say I gradually saw spirits drag. I located the start of this shift in the aftermath of the dot-com bubble. Everyone was very frightened, but ultimately, nothing serious has happened. Everyone then said, "it is". My feeling is that there are financial activities in which, in reality, it does not create a lot of value. Including some banks where, in my view, some have lost sight of any long-term vision. The profession of banker means to build a relationship of long term with customers... to help create them, the value.