Global Finance, Swiss Precision: Prof. Cédric Tille’s Lessons from U.S. Federal Reserve, Swiss National Bank & Academia

What does it take to shape global finance and inspire the next generation of economists? In this compelling conversation with Prof. Cédric Tille, a distinguished economist, we explore the remarkable career of someone who has profoundly shaped international economics and education with Swiss precision. Tille, renowned for his insights into Switzerland’s financial system and monetary policy, has masterfully balanced scholarship, policy impact, and teaching innovation. His illustrious career includes roles as an economist at the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, a member of the Swiss National Bank’s Bank Council since 2011, and a professor at the Graduate Institute in Geneva, since 2007, and at UniDistance, underscoring his global expertise.

In this interview, Tille reflects on Switzerland’s role as a financial safe haven, the intricacies of negative interest rates, effective teaching strategies for diverse learners, and the art of persuasive communication, illuminating the interplay between global finance and practical application. Central to his approach is a precise, structured method, as he shares, “Convey the message in simple terms” and “boil it down to three main points,” emphasizing concise persuasion in policy and education. His pragmatic teaching philosophy shines through, as he notes, “An aloof academic” is “a disaster for communication,” reflecting his disciplined clarity in engaging audiences.

The conversation also turns personal as Tille opens up about his unexpected journey from aspiring fighter pilot to economist, offering insights into adaptability. He underscores the value of flexibility, stating, “If you’re too stuck in your own path, you risk missing them.” This blend of professional precision and personal openness reveals what drives Tille and shapes his exceptional teaching craft.

In summary, this interview offers a rich fusion of global financial wisdom, monetary policy insights, innovative teaching strategies, and career guidance, providing essential lessons for aspiring economists, educators, and policymakers. Through his story, Tille inspires readers to approach economics with precision, connect persuasively, and navigate their paths with purpose.

Podcast Ep. 11

Interview by Sorina I. Crisan – Matthey de l’Endroit, PhD

Q1. Can you tell us about your academic and professional background?

Answer: I’m a professor of international microeconomics at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva. I teach our students at the master’s and PhD levels. I’ve been here since 2007. Before that, I spent nine years as an economist at the U.S. Federal Reserve, more specifically, at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

In addition to my main job at the Graduate Institute, I also teach a bachelor’s course at the Distance University of Switzerland, which is based in Brig, in Valais. It’s a university that serves people who, for a series of reasons, don’t attend regular universities. This includes people who already have jobs. So it’s a different format to the one at the Graduate Institute.

On the policy side, I spent 12 years (from 2011 to 2023), on the Bank Council of the Swiss National Bank, which is the management board. So I’ve always had a foot in policymaking as well. 

Q2. How does the Distance University, or UniDistance, operate?

Answer: It’s purely distance education. Most of our students are Swiss, but it is also open to foreign students.

For example, most of the classes are in French, but we have a program in German as well. We have recently reformed the bachelor program so that you can take classes in both languages. And we also have a master’s program in English, in data analytics, which is more from the point of view of being a user as opposed to a producer. (For a complete list of courses in English, French, or German, please see this website.)

Q3. Who is the typical student at UniDistance?

Answer: UniDistance is aimed at a range of people, such as students already in employment. For instance, we have several students who are elite sportspeople in need of training once the best years of their sports careers are behind them. But we also have students who are just fresh out of high school and, for whatever reason, don’t find it convenient to attend an in-person university.

The University offers full-blown bachelor’s degrees. And it’s not because it’s distance learning that it is any different in that respect, far from it. Then there are also master’s programs. The biggest departments are psychology and law. Then there’s also economics, history, mathematics and computer science. There are shorter programs in artificial intelligence, and several others. Lastly, we also teach several continuing education programs. (For more details, please see their website.)

Q4. How would you describe Switzerland’s role in the global financial system, and what challenges does it face?

Answer: Switzerland is a small open economy, with a high GDP per capita and very high financial and trade integration. And the Swiss case (that is, Switzerland’s particular economic and financial model) takes many forms.

Banking, obviously, is a major one. Swiss banks are leaders, especially in wealth management, not just in Switzerland, but globally. This is a traditional niche of excellence for the Swiss banking system. It also, of course, does other forms of banking.

Switzerland, surprisingly enough, is very important in commodity trading. We don’t have oil, but we trade in it. It’s a hub of commodity trading, which is actually quite a big component of the Swiss balance of payments. It’s one of the specificities of Swiss data that you have to be aware of when you use them. Geneva, or the region of Zurich and Zug, are hubs for the activity, for various historical reasons.

It’s also a center for pharmaceuticals and chemicals. More than half of Swiss exports of goods are pharma and chemicals. We usually think of watches, which are important, but actually not such a big part at all.

With this position come challenges, and I would like to flag two.

The first one is our relationship with our big neighbor, the European Union. So far, the Swiss have been quite good at having their cake and eating it too. They are tough negotiators. But from the EU side, for several years now, it’s been more like, “Well, we have this bilateral agreement system, which was always conceived as a temporary step.” So from Brussels, the view is more like we should have a good agreement for the long run be it membership or something else.

That’s something we’ll have to vote on. It was negotiated for many years. Unfortunately, the Federal Council stepped back from submitting it to the population, which I think was quite unfortunate. After renegotiation, the new agreement is back for a vote. But it’s important now for Switzerland to be clear: where do we position ourselves? Doing a special deal, and then talking about it every couple of years, is not so good for investment. You want to have some footing, to know where you stand. There was a time when Brussels was quite understanding of our special case. But that time, I think, is gone. Being treated as an exception can only go so far.

So that’s the first big challenge: on which basis are we going to set our relationship with our biggest trading partner? And it will always be the biggest partner. Even though North America or emerging economies are growing, the European Union is next door. And that’s a fact you can’t do anything about.

The second challenge is in the wake of the Credit Suisse debacle, but even more broadly: what is Switzerland’s vision for the financial center? What does it mean to be a financial center?

It’s not, in my view, necessary to have a big global bank. That’s not a crucial element. We can have excellence in financial services through wealth management, which is a very different line of banking activity from commercial banking.

So there is really a need to be clear. Because when we used to have a couple of big banks, it was one thing. Now we have only one. There’s going to be a tightening of regulation. I mean, very soon the Swiss government will announce the new rules for UBS. But having only one big bank, which is twice the size of the economy, even though it used to be even bigger, is something I view as dangerous. So there is a need for clarity.

Of course, the bank says, rightly so, that if they want to compete in many lines of business, they have to have a certain size. But then the question is: can a small country really support a big global bank? And especially a big global bank that has domestic activities, because banking is very heterogeneous. If you think of banks that do foreign wealth management out of Switzerland: should they unfortunately encounter some serious trouble and disappear, it would be a hit in terms of jobs and tax revenue. But they don’t do any commercial activity (meaning mortgage loans or loans to firms in Switzerland), so it wouldn’t be so bad. It wouldn’t be pleasant, to be clear, but manageable.

But for UBS, then you have the two elements: the domestic activity and the global activity are very linked, and that’s a source of danger.

So these are, to me, the two big challenges we have to confront.

Q5. The SNB has said negative interest rates remain a potential tool. Can you please explain what that means?

Answer: The SNB has said that this is a tool they can use. They’ve been very clear that they’d rather not have to use it because it’s not something you enjoy doing.

Now, to give a bit of context: what the central bank sets is what we call a nominal interest rate, that’s a return on a Swiss franc. But in economics, you also have what’s called the real interest rate, which corrects for inflation. It’s the price of a good today in terms of a good tomorrow.

That real interest rate is not set by the central bank. It’s set by the real side of the economy, meaning productivity, growth, demographics, etc.

What we’ve seen in advanced economies, including in Switzerland, since the 1980s, is a very clear downward trend in real interest rates. There’s a whole, very rich literature on that. Many elements have come into it.

One element is demographics. With the aging of the population, we save more. That creates a higher supply of savings. So the price adjusts, and the interest rate goes down.

There’s also a need for safety. The interest rates that have gone down the most are on safe assets, such as Swiss government bonds. What’s the risk of the Swiss government defaulting? It’s tiny. Or if it does happen, then everything else is gone pretty much anyway.

So there is this demand for safety, and people accept very low returns on Swiss bonds. The 10-year bond even now is at 0.3%. Bear in mind, long-term inflation in Switzerland—at the middle of the SNB’s target—is 1%. So people treat the Swiss franc the way they’d treat a bank safe. When you think of a bank safe, you put whatever valuables you have in it, the bank charges you, and you’re okay with that. The Swiss government bond is a bit the same. You buy it, get a low return, but you’re okay with it because that’s the price of safety.

These structural factors are there, and they’re very deeply rooted.

We had negative rates until 2021. Then came the big inflation increase, and interest rates—very fast—went up. But I’ve always been convinced that the structural features were still there. So once inflation was behind us, we’d go back to a territory of low rates. And that’s where we are now, especially for Switzerland. It’s much less the case in the U.S., which has much bigger debt and a lot more uncertainty, including on U.S. government debt. So that’s another situation.

But now that the inflation episode is behind us, we’re back confronting those structural factors: demographics and the need for safe assets, which is even more pronounced now than before. Some people are even willing to pay to hold Swiss government debt.

Against this background of low structural rates, you can think of the interest rate the central bank sets as basically moving around that trend. Sometimes there’s a recession—you lower the rate. Sometimes there’s a boom—you increase the rate. But you’re moving around that structural interest rate. And now as it’s low, it doesn’t take much for the central bank interest rate to go into negative territory.

People often think that negative interest rates are crazy, that it’s some kind of pathology. It’s actually not the case at all. Sometimes you hear, “Well, if an interest rate is negative, isn’t that like my wage being negative?” And the answer is no. The equivalent of a negative wage would be an interest rate of minus 100%, meaning you lose everything. An interest rate of minus 0.2% means you keep what you put in, minus a fee, so to speak.

In fact, it’s very standard in economics to have negative real interest rates. Again, a real interest rate is the price of a good between today and tomorrow. When we think of microeconomics, in the market for apples or oranges, nothing says an apple must always be more expensive than an orange. It’s a bit the same thing here. On average, given that we like to consume now rather than later, real interest rates are typically positive. But there’s nothing absurd about a negative interest rate. It’s unusual, but it’s not absurd.

The real question is about effectiveness. Does policy transmission work the same when you’re in negative-rate territory as when you’re in positive territory? There’s a lot of research on that, it’s debated. But my take on the evidence is that it pretty much works the same. So there’s nothing fundamentally broken.

Now, the follow up question is: at what point does the interest rate become so low that people say, “Forget it, I’m keeping it all in cash”? We used to think that point was zero. Now, I’m not so sure. For myself, it probably is. I mean, if I start being charged an interest rate on my account, I may get a couple of hundred-franc bills and keep them at home. Just be careful not to forget where you put them. Of course, if you’re a firm and we’re talking about a couple of million francs, you cannot do that. You’re not going to go with a truck and collect the money. You want the security that comes with the financial system. But there is a level at which people will start considering alternatives.

There’s also been concern that if interest rates are negative, financial intermediaries—banks, insurers—will say, “Well, we need to make a return,” and so they go buy something very risky that they don’t necessarily understand. That’s why, in parallel with negative rates, regulators are very involved. They need to make sure that banks don’t take on too much risk that we’ll end up paying for ten years from now.

Q6. What exactly is a “safe asset,” and how is that concept changing in today’s global context?

Answer: The general definition of a safe asset is something you don’t really have to think about. You take, say, a government bond from a country where there’s no default risk—you park your money there, and they tell you, “For the next ten years, we’ll give you X percent.” You know it will happen. Now, it might be in another currency, so you could still have exchange rate risk, but you’re not worried about losing your money.

Swiss government bonds are excellent in that sense—just like German or even French bonds. U.S. Treasuries are also; or I should maybe say, used to be. Because one of the big developments over the last couple of months—and it really is a fundamental shift—is that markets are starting to look at U.S. government debt and say, “Maybe this isn’t quite as safe as we thought.”

And it’s not because of the debt level itself. That’s not new. The U.S. is a big economy—they could raise taxes if they wanted to. The real concern now is about dysfunction in policymaking. For example, when draft laws come up that mention the idea of possibly taxing foreign holders of U.S. government debt—that’s worrying. Because if you start taxing only the foreigners, it’s not that different from a form of default.

That’s why, if you look at U.S. Treasury yields, they remain relatively high. We’re beginning to see a risk premium on U.S. debt. That used to be unthinkable.

And that creates a challenge for a country like Switzerland. If investors say, “Well, the U.S. isn’t that safe anymore, let’s move our money somewhere else,” we’re the logical destination. But we’re talking about a lot of money. You’d swamp the Swiss government bond market in a day if it really started to shift.

So then the question comes: should Switzerland issue more debt? Should we say, “Well, maybe we can afford to have a bit more debt now”? I’m not saying we should go up to 100% of GDP or anything like that. But we may be a bit too popular for our own good.

That’s always the difficulty with being a safe haven. When things are delicate globally, money flows in. But that means your exchange rate appreciates, or you end up with very low interest rates. Usually, that’s fine—but there’s a limit to how low you can go. And that makes life for the Swiss National Bank quite delicate, actually.

Q7. How does the Swiss banking system compare to the U.S. model, and what broader lessons can be drawn from Switzerland’s political and economic structure?

Answer: The Swiss banking system is much bigger when you compare it to the size of the country. It’s more oriented toward wealth management and trade finance. U.S. banks, on the other hand, do a lot more investment banking—something some Swiss banks also ventured into. But that didn’t turn out to be such a great idea, at least not to the extent the U.S. does it.

One thing that’s actually similar in both countries—but maybe more pronounced in Switzerland—is the extent of decentralization. And I think that’s a huge asset. Especially at the political level, a lot of power is held locally or at the cantonal level.

Take taxes, for example. About 20% of my income tax goes to the federal government, 40% goes to the canton—Fribourg, in my case—and another 40% goes to my town, Châtel-Saint-Denis. Of course, personal income tax isn’t the only source of revenue, but it gives you a pretty good sense of where the power lies.

That structure really hardwires a sense of pragmatism into the system—which, to me, is central. It gives people a sense of empowerment. You don’t feel like you’re in a country where everything is decided in some faraway capital that doesn’t listen to you.

And that kind of disempowerment is golden for any populist movement. So, in contrast, the Swiss sense of ownership—of being part of the decision-making process—matters a lot. There’s this deeply pragmatic attitude. When you come to a Swiss person with a great idea, the first thing they’re going to ask is, “Okay, but how much is that going to cost?”

It can be a little annoying, yes—it slows things down. But I think that’s also the strength. Decisions take time, but once they’re made, they’re very well rooted.

So yes, decentralization—more pronounced in Switzerland than in many places—is not a perfect model. It can be slow. But it ensures that things are viewed pragmatically, with long-term grounding. And I think that’s a great idea.

Q8. You worked at the Federal Reserve. What was the internal culture like, particularly around decision-making and debate?

Answer: The working culture at the Fed was very much one of encouraging dissent, so to speak. We were actively encouraged to bring up points that didn’t necessarily align with the prevailing view at the institution—as long as it remained internal, of course.

I vividly remember when one of our presidents was Tim Geithner, who later became Secretary of the Treasury. The idea during briefings was: Tell me what I haven’t seen. Tell me what I don’t know. That was really the spirit—encouraging people to come in with a different view.

Of course, you had to argue that view. You couldn’t just throw out a contrarian opinion and walk away. But the mindset was: if I think everything is going right, that can’t be true—something is always going wrong. And if I don’t see it, that’s even worse. So there was a real emphasis on encouraging people to disagree, to push back.

Now, at the end of the day, management still has to make a decision. You may listen to the dissenters without necessarily following their recommendations. But I think it’s a healthy culture.

And honestly, I think that kind of culture is essential in any organization—whether political, economic, or corporate. Encouraging disagreement is fundamental. Without it, you end up surrounded by yes-people, and that never ends well.

Q9. Has access to leadership in Swiss banking become more diverse over time?

Answer: You don’t have to be a captain in the army to be working at a high level in a Swiss bank. There was a time when that used to be the case. The Swiss Army was basically the biggest business club in the country. Which, of course, is hugely questionable—because only Swiss men do military service. So in terms of representativity, it was a horrible thing.

That’s much less the case now. In banks today, you have a lot of people who are not Swiss. I don’t have precise figures, but that’s what I observe. And, it’s not clear to me that this is really different from the U.S., or at least not to a material extent.

Q10. The U.S. dollar remains dominant globally, but how stable is that position today, and could another currency step in?

Answer: The U.S. dollar is dominant, and in my view, it will remain so. It’s dominant in many financial activities and is widely used in international trade. That dominance is being eroded a bit—for instance, there’s a slightly higher role for the Chinese renminbi in trade, but that remains quite regional.

The euro also plays a role, especially in payment systems. But the euro’s international role is not as large as you’d expect based on the size of Europe. It tends to remain relatively concentrated in regional use.

Now, one thing that could change—and this is really new—is that we’re starting to talk about the safety of U.S. government debt. It’s not that it’s no longer safe, but the fact that it’s even being discussed is already a huge change. That opens a door.

There’s an opportunity there for Europe to provide the world with a safe asset. There’s a lot of demand globally for safe assets—that used to be U.S. Treasuries. Now, with some doubt, Europe could step in and say, “Well, we’ll issue Eurobonds, and we’ll provide that safety, that store of value the world needs.” If they did that, there could be a shift—maybe not everywhere, but in some segments.

There’s a big literature on the international role of currencies. But historically, we don’t have that many examples of reserve currency transitions. The big one was when the dollar overtook the British pound. And it’s debated—in some segments, it happened quickly, in others, more slowly.

I don’t really see the U.S. losing that role.

As for gold— shiny metals—I’ve never been much of a fan. There’s a reason why we moved off the gold standard. Because when you think of what you want a currency to do, you have two goals. First, you want long-term stability—price stability. You don’t want inflation to be too high, and you want it to be predictable. Gold does that reasonably well, because its supply is stable. We dig it out of the ground regularly, no big surprises. Well, except in rare historical cases—like Spain discovering gold in Latin America, which led to a big influx and they experienced higher inflation at that time.

But gold has a problem: you can’t create it. And that brings us to the second thing you want from a currency: flexibility. There are moments, like during a crisis—or historically, in harvest season in agrarian economies—where you need a lot of liquidity. Payments need to be made. If your currency is tied to gold, you can’t create that extra money when it’s needed. So you lack flexibility.

That’s why, under the gold standard, financial crises were actually quite frequent; there just wasn’t enough money to go around.

Of course, once you give governments the ability to create money, there’s the temptation to overdo it. You think, “Oh, how about I create a bit more… and a bit more…” and you get inflation. That’s why we invented independent central banks, with a clear mandate for price stability, to try to get the best of both worlds.

It’s not perfect. It’s still just an institution. Like any institution or law, it can be undone. But I would really caution against this illusion that says, “Let’s just anchor the currency to something physical and we’ll be fine.” Maybe for long-term stability, yes—but for flexibility? No.

Imagine if, in 2008, central banks had not been able to create the money that was demanded. We would’ve had another Great Depression. And we did see something close to that in parts of Europe, the periphery. Without that ability to respond, the crisis would have been much more widespread. The creativity of central banks pretty much saved the world at that time—or at the very least, avoided a return to the 1930s.

Q11. You’ve had a long and distinguished career in economics. Was that always the plan from the start?

Answer: There was never a grand plan to study economics, not at all. My dream job, actually, was to be a fighter pilot. Nothing to do with economics. But I wear glasses, I’m not an athlete—so that was gone fairly quickly.

In high school, back in Valais, Switzerland, we had a class in economics which I quickly realized it was something I enjoyed. And since the University of Lausanne offered both management and economics tracks, I chose to focus my studies on economics. It worked well and so things happened. I wouldn’t say it was by accident, but there was definitely some element of that.

I think what’s important is not necessarily having a strict, strategic life plan. It’s good to have a general direction, of course, a sense of where you want to go, but you also have to stay alert, to be reactive to opportunities that come along. Sometimes something unexpected works out well. So don’t be stuck in your plan. Be fairly nimble.

If you do have a plan, it should be more of a broad outline than a rigid blueprint; unless there’s something you’re really passionate about. In that case, fine, stick to it. But for me, I never had a passion for economics, to be clear. I enjoy it, I think I do it reasonably well, but it’s not something I dreamed about since I was twelve. Not at all.

What mattered for me was being open to what came next. When I was studying at University of Lausanne, it became clear I was doing okay, and I started to think maybe I should go for a doctorate. What I knew for sure was that I didn’t want to do it in Lausanne. Nothing against Lausanne, I just didn’t want to stay in the same place where I had done all my previous studies.

The decision to go to the U.S. came very fast, I’d say it was made in about 72 hours. I remember it vividly. I was in the master’s program at the time, and I said, “Okay, I want to do a doctorate.” I didn’t know where. My professors called me into their office and said very clearly: “You should apply to the U.S. That’s where you’ll get the best training.” This was back in 1992. But we had to start the applications in just a couple of weeks.

So I remember, that was on a Tuesday. And by Saturday, I called my mother and said, “You know what, Mom? In six months, I may be in America.” And she said, “Okay, go for it.” I hadn’t really thought it through, but I figured, why not? So I applied, and that’s how it happened.

I really believe in being open to opportunities you didn’t plan for. If you’re too stuck in your own path, you risk missing them. And also, don’t always stay in the same place. If you have the chance to travel, do it. I understand that sometimes there are other factors—personal, professional—that can make it harder, and that’s completely valid. But the ability to step out of your comfort zone—even if you come back to it later—that can be incredibly valuable. Just go see something else.

Q12. Based on your experience, what are the most important skills in policy, and in academia?

Answer: A skill that’s useful is the ability to go in depth, to really analyze a problem carefully. That applies in both policy and academic work.

In policy, another important skill is being able to see and communicate the policy relevance of what you’re doing. Some parts of academia can be like ivory towers, where people go into long-winded dissertations about topics that leave everyone else wondering, “What is this even about?” I’m not a fan of that, that’s not really my thing.

I always say: academics should remember that it's the taxpayer who pays our wages. So what we do should be useful. That doesn't mean everything needs to have an immediate application, far from it. But the idea that our work should have meaning beyond just our field is important.

I’m lucky to have many people around me who are not academics, and if I start going on and on down some narrow academic path, I get reminded pretty quickly: “Hey, where are you going with this? What does this mean in the real world?” And that, I think, is a real chance, to keep that connection with reality.

Q13. Looking back, what has been an unexpected turning point in your career and what advice can you share with us from that experience?

Answer: Pursuing doctoral studies was an inflection point for me. In high school, if someone had told me I’d be holding a doctorate in a few years, I’d have said, “Nice of you to think so, but come on.”

When things come that you didn’t think could be possible, go for it. But it’s always important to keep in mind what’s key—know what you want and what you don’t want. It’s not because you could do something that you should do it, otherwise you end up being pulled. You have to find this balance: being open to opportunities you wouldn’t have thought of while still being the conductor of your orchestra. If you put the cursor too much on being flexible, you’ll be moved around by events outside your control. If you’re too focused on sticking to your plan, you may end up in a dead end. It’s a subtle balance. It’s good to be surrounded by people who can give you an opinion. I have a narrow circle of people whose opinions I listen to, as I tend to be more like, “I know what I want, and that’s it.” So you need to develop the ability to not be stuck in your ways, but you don’t want to always be in agreement with the last person you spoke to.

Q14. How do you define persuasion in your work? And what role does it play in influencing decisions and shaping understanding in your field?

Answer: I wouldn’t define persuasion as getting people to agree with you, not necessarily, but as making them aware of the point you’re conveying. To do that, you need to be very concise and it depends on your audience. As an academic, I might speak to a technically oriented audience, so you go into explaining the model, or the statistics, or whatever you used in your analysis. But if you’re talking to policymakers or the broader public, don’t go there because they won’t understand. Sometimes they’ll think, “Oh, it looks serious, scientific,” but most of the time, they’ll feel like you’re trying to push something past them that they don’t grasp, and you lose the connection.

The key is to convey the message in simple terms. I find it very useful to use metaphors or an image because people remember those. You have to think carefully about the metaphor, but it helps to give a vivid image. If you’re speaking to the general public, connect it to everyday life. You don’t want to come across as an aloof academic; it might feel good for the ego, but it’s a disaster for communication. Have a clear, simple story. For instance, in presentations, I tell my students: have one slide that says, “Why do we care?” One slide that says, “What I do.” And one slide that says, “What I find.” That’s it. After three slides, if someone walks out, they should have the essence. The same goes for communicating with the media: boil it down to three main points and stick to them. People will remember that; 20 points, they won’t. And, trying to pack in too much information can be counterproductive. The technical level depends on the audience, but I’m always careful not to impress with technicalities because it doesn’t work. Policymakers and people aren’t convinced by sophisticated arguments; they’re convinced by a clear story.

Q15. How do you ensure your message connects with diverse audiences, from technical groups to the general public, without losing its impact?

Answer: You have to get a sense of your audience. Some groups will be more technically oriented, others not, but even with technical audiences, linking to current events is key. For instance, I might say, “I’m showing you a model, but you may have seen that central banks do this or that—here’s how it connects to the model.” That’s central to what I do. Even when I take part in a debate or a media event, I don’t go technical. People won’t grasp technicalities, but they’ll get a connection.

You have to connect in a way that makes sense. First, they need to understand the point you’re conveying, but also connect in the sense of, “Okay, he’s one of us.” So, you need to show why it matters to their everyday life or something concrete. If you just talk about your topic from an ivory tower, even if you’re clear, people won’t connect with you. They’ll think, “That was an interesting chat, but whatever, let’s move on.”

Q16. How do you manage time and structure your teaching materials to ensure flexibility while covering key points effectively?

Answer: When teaching, you have to tailor your slides or materials accordingly. I sometimes tend to rush toward the end more than at the beginning. So, for instance, when I teach online, I keep a sheet next to me with the class broken into blocks and the amount of time for each, and I keep an eye on it to make sure I’m broadly on track. In some classes, like the three-hour executive education lessons that I teach at the Geneva Graduate Institute, I break up with different activities, but I always have a sheet with my timing planned out. Of course, I never follow it to the minute, but it gives a broad sense.

It’s like going on a hike and saying, “It’ll take me roughly 30 minutes to get to that bridge, then 40 minutes to reach that point.” In a similar way, you need a broad overview of the class. And I have a rule: I count two minutes per slide, more or less. Then you structure your slides, leaving some space for parts you can skip. If I’m on time, I cover those points; if I’m rushed, I skip those three slides, but the rest of the presentation doesn’t depend on them. So, you can summarize the key points in 20 or 30 seconds and move on. I build parts of the teaching that can be set aside if needed.

Q17. How do you structure a multi-hour course to keep participants engaged and interactive from the start till the end?

Answer: You need breaks about every hour or so and to alternate the form of interaction. Even with breaks, if students have to listen to me for three or four hours, they won’t stay engaged. And it depends on the audience. For instance, with an executive class, I might split them into small groups, give them an assignment where they interact for about 10 minutes, go around to engage with each group, and then hold a general discussion. You can also start with an online poll—there are so many tools we can use now. Of course at some point, the professor needs to speak, and the class listens, but you want several points where they engage, especially at the beginning. A good idea is to start with an activity, poll, or sharing of experiences.

One of the best presentations I ever saw wasn’t from an academic. The presenter took questions first, wrote them down, and then structured his presentation to an answer to them. He knew those questions would come, and it allowed him to tailor his talk. That was a good approach, though it depends on the topic. So you need to have a topic that is amenable to that, and in that case you get the audience involved from the very beginning.

Another option I like is putting a debate topic on the board. If you have 20 people, a full debate means only four might speak, so you need to break them into smaller groups for several minutes, let them interact, and then bring everyone together. From the very beginning, they’re engaged.

Q18. Based on your professional experience, would you like to share any advice or suggestions with junior-level professionals and academics interested in pursuing a similar career path?

Answer: When it comes to economic policy, there are several places to work at, like for example the Swiss National Bank. You also have short-term jobs, like a couple of months or two years as a research assistant, which is a good way to start your career early.

In terms of academia, my general advice is to be very clear—know what you want and what you don’t want because it is a long journey. It sounds great, but be aware: you’ll likely do a master’s, now more people do a pre-doc, then a doctorate, a postdoc, and maybe get an assistant professor job, which isn’t guaranteed to be permanent. This isn’t an environment with stability, which is neither good nor bad, just be aware of it. There may come a moment when you’re asked to move, which can raise issues of balancing family and work life, etc. That’s what it is.

A policy track is a bit different, but again, be very aware of what’s involved when choosing this track and then make a choice. And one person might say it’s great for them, another might say absolutely not; and they’re both right.

To conclude, you want to make sure that you do not pursue something just because it sounds good. Make sure you’re clear about what it involves and ask yourself, “Is this something I’m okay with?” If you’re not, the earlier you realize it, the better.

Thank you for reading.

Remember to subscribe to our newsletter, to receive updates about upcoming interviews.

#Economics #Academia #CareerAdvice #Policy #TeachingSkills #Switzerland #Interview

***

Cedric Tille, PhD

Professor of International Economics | The Geneva Graduate Institute

Program Director | Bilateral Assistance and Capacity Building for Central Banks | Switzerland

*Note: This interview was recorded on June 4, 2025, and has been edited for clarity, ease of readability, and length.

**Illustrations by: The profile and main cover photos shown in this interview were made available by Dr. Cédric Tille.