Background information   6

Statistical methodology improvements  8

Impact on MIP indicators  9

Improving the quality framework and ongoing work   15

Chapter 1: Tables by year - Headline indicators  17

Table 1.1: MIP Scoreboard 2013  17

Table 1.2: MIP Scoreboard 2012  18

Table 1.3: MIP Scoreboard 2011  19

Table 1.4: MIP Scoreboard 2010  20

Table 1.5: MIP Scoreboard 2009  21

Table 1.6: MIP Scoreboard 2008  22

Table 1.7: MIP Scoreboard 2007  23

Table 1.8: MIP Scoreboard 2006  24

Table 1.9: MIP Scoreboard 2005  25

Table 1.10: MIP Scoreboard 2004  26

Chapter 2: Tables by year - Auxiliary indicators used in the economic reading of the MIP scoreboard  27

Table 2.1: Auxiliary indicators, 2013  27

Table 2.1 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2013  28

Table 2.2: Auxiliary indicators, 2012  29

Table 2.2 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2012  30

Table 2.3: Auxiliary indicators, 2011  31

Table 2.3 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2011  32

Table 2.4: Auxiliary indicators, 2010  33

Table 2.4 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2010  34

Table 2.5: Auxiliary indicators, 2009  35

Table 2.5 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2009  36

Table 2.6: Auxiliary indicators, 2008  37

Table 2.6 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2008  38

Table 2.7: Auxiliary indicators, 2007  39

Table 2.7 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2007  40

Table 2.8: Auxiliary indicators, 2006  41

Table 2.8 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2006  42

Table 2.9: Auxiliary indicators, 2005  43

Table 2.9 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2005  44

Table 2.10: Auxiliary indicators, 2004  45

Table 2.10 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2004  46

Chapter 3: Tables by indicator  47

Table 3.1: 3 year average of Current Account Balance as % of GDP   47

Table 3.2: Current Account Balance as % of GDP (BoP data) 48

Table 3.3: Net International Investment Position as % of GDP   49

Table 3.4: % change (3 years) of Real Effective Exchange Rate (42 IC) with HIPC deflators  50

Table 3.5: % y-o-y change in Real Effective Exchange Rate (42 IC) with HIPC deflators  51

Table 3.6: % change (5 years) in Export Market Shares  52

Table 3.7: % y-o-y change in Export Market Shares  53

Table 3.8: % change (3 years) in Nominal ULC   54

Table 3.9: % y-o-y change in Nominal ULC   55

Table 3.10: % y-o-y change in Deflated House Prices  56

Table 3.11: Private Sector Credit Flow as % of GDP – CO   57

Table 3.12: Private Sector Debt as % of GDP – CO   58

Table 3.13: General Government sector Debt as % of GDP   59

Table 3.14: 3 years average of Unemployment Rate  60

Table 3.15: Unemployment Rate  61

Table 3.16: % y-o-y change in Total Financial Sector Liabilities  62

Table 3.17: Total Financial Sector Liabilities - millions, national currency  63

Table 3.18: % y-o-y change in real GDP   64

Table 3.19: Gross Fixed Capital Formation as % of GDP   65

Table 3.20: Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D as % of GDP   66

Table 3.21: Net Lending / Borrowing as % of GDP, BoP data  67

Table 3.22: Net External Debt as % of GDP   68

Table 3.23: FDI Inflows as % of GDP   69

Table 3.24: Inward FDI Stocks as % of GDP   70

Table 3.25: Net Trade Balance of Energy Products as % of GDP   71

Table 3.26: % change (3 years) in REER vs. EA   72

Table 3.27: % change (5 years) in Terms of Trade  73

Table 3.28: % change (5 years) Export Performance vs. Advanced Economies  74

Table 3.29: % y-o-y change in Export Market Shares, goods and services, volume  75

Table 3.30: % y-o-y change in Labour Productivity  76

Table 3.31: % change (10 years) in Nominal ULC   77

Table 3.32: % change (10 years) in ULC performance relative to the EA   78

Table 3.33: % change (3 years) in Nominal House Prices  79

Table 3.34: Residential Construction as % of GDP   80

Table 3.35: Private Sector Debt as % of GDP, NCO   81

Table 3.36: Financial Sector Leverage (debt to equity in %) 82

Table 3.37: % y-o-y change in Employment 83

Table 3.38: Activity Rate (15-64 years) 84

Table 3.39: Long-term Unemployment Rate (% of active population) 85

Table 3.40: Youth Unemployment Rate (% of active population in the same age group) 86

Table 3.41: Young People not in Employment, Education or Training (% of total population) 87

Table 3.42: People At-risk of Poverty or Social Exclusion (% of total population) 88

Table 3.43: At-risk of Poverty Rate (% of total population) 89

Table 3.44: Severe Material Deprivation (% of total population) 90

Table 3.45: Persons Living in Households with Very Low Work Intensity (% of population aged 0-59) 91

Chapter 4: Tables by Member States - Headline indicators  92

Table 4.1: The MIP scoreboard for Belgium   92

Table 4.2: The MIP scoreboard for Bulgaria  93

Table 4.3: The MIP scoreboard for Czech Republic  94

Table 4.4: The MIP scoreboard for Denmark  95

Table 4.5: The MIP scoreboard for Germany  96

Table 4.6: The MIP scoreboard for Estonia  97

Table 4.7: The MIP scoreboard for Ireland  98

Table 4.8: The MIP scoreboard for Greece  99

Table 4.9: The MIP scoreboard for Spain  100

Table 4.10: The MIP scoreboard for France  101

Table 4.11: The MIP scoreboard for Croatia  102

Table 4.12: The MIP scoreboard for Italy  103

Table 4.13: The MIP scoreboard for Cyprus  104

Table 4.14: The MIP scoreboard for Latvia  105

Table 4.15: The MIP scoreboard for Lithuania  106

Table 4.16: The MIP scoreboard for Luxembourg  107

Table 4.17: The MIP scoreboard for Hungary  108

Table 4.18: The MIP scoreboard for Malta  109

Table 4.19: The MIP scoreboard for Netherlands  110

Table 4.20: The MIP scoreboard for Austria  111

Table 4.21: The MIP scoreboard for Poland  112

Table 4.22: The MIP scoreboard for Portugal 113

Table 4.23: The MIP scoreboard for Romania  114

Table 4.24: The MIP scoreboard for Slovenia  115

Table 4.25: The MIP scoreboard for Slovakia  116

Table 4.26: The MIP scoreboard for Finland  117

Table 4.27: The MIP scoreboard for Sweden  118

Table 4.28: The MIP scoreboard for United Kingdom   119

Chapter 5: Tables by Member States - Auxiliary indicators used in the economic reading of the MIP scoreboard  120

Table 5.1: Auxiliary indicators for Belgium   120

Table 5.1 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Belgium   121

Table 5.2: Auxiliary indicators for Bulgaria  122

Table 5.2 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Bulgaria  123

Table 5.3: Auxiliary indicators for Czech Republic  124

Table 5.3 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Czech Republic  125

Table 5.4: Auxiliary indicators for Denmark  126

Table 5.4 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Denmark  127

Table 5.5: Auxiliary indicators for Germany  128

Table 5.5 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Germany  129

Table 5.6: Auxiliary indicators for Estonia  130

Table 5.6 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Estonia  131

Table 5.7: Auxiliary indicators for Ireland  132

Table 5.7 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Ireland  133

Table 5.8: Auxiliary indicators for Greece  134

Table 5.8 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Greece  135

Table 5.9: Auxiliary indicators for Spain  136

Table 5.9 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Spain  137

Table 5.10: Auxiliary indicators for France  138

Table 5.10 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for France  139

Table 5.11: Auxiliary indicators for Croatia  140

Table 5.11 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Croatia  141

Table 5.12: Auxiliary indicators for Italy  142

Table 5.12 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Italy  143

Table 5.13: Auxiliary indicators for Cyprus  144

Table 5.13 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Cyprus  145

Table 5.14: Auxiliary indicators for Latvia  146

Table 5.14 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Latvia  147

Table 5.15: Auxiliary indicators for Lithuania  148

Table 5.15 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Lithuania  149

Table 5.16: Auxiliary indicators for Luxembourg  150

Table 5.16 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Luxembourg  151

Table 5.17: Auxiliary indicators for Hungary  152

Table 5.17 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Hungary  153

Table 5.18: Auxiliary indicators for Malta  154

Table 5.18 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Malta  155

Table 5.19: Auxiliary indicators for Netherlands  156

Table 5.19 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Netherlands  157

Table 5.20: Auxiliary indicators for Austria  158

Table 5.20 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Austria  159

Table 5.21: Auxiliary indicators for Poland  160

Table 5.21 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Poland  161

Table 5.22: Auxiliary indicators for Portugal 162

Table 5.22 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Portugal 163

Table 5.23: Auxiliary indicators for Romania  164

Table 5.23 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Romania  165

Table 5.24: Auxiliary indicators for Slovenia  166

Table 5.24 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Slovenia  167

Table 5.25: Auxiliary indicators for Slovakia  168

Table 5.25 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Slovakia  169

Table 5.26: Auxiliary indicators for Finland  170

Table 5.26 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Finland  171

Table 5.27: Auxiliary indicators for Sweden  172

Table 5.27 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Sweden  173

Table 5.28: Auxiliary indicators for United Kingdom   174

Table 5.28 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for United Kingdom   175

Background information

This Statistical Annex to the 2015 Alert Mechanism Report (AMR) presents the Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure (MIP) scoreboard indicators and auxiliary indicators used in the economic reading of the MIP scoreboard. European Union economic policy frameworks rely more than ever on timely and high quality socio-economic and financial statistics. The MIP scoreboard and auxiliary indicators are mostly based on data collected under European legislation. The indicators are mostly compiled by Eurostat. The MIP scoreboard indicators are accompanied by indicative thresholds (used in the AMR) while no thresholds are applied to the auxiliary indicators. Since the publication of the first Statistical Annex in 2012, significant progress has been achieved towards enhancing the standards and methods used for the compilation of underlying data as well as strengthening the quality assurance framework.  

The composition of the MIP scoreboard and the definition of the indicators did not change compared with the 2014 AMR.

The MIP Scoreboard consists of eleven indicators measuring internal and external macroeconomic imbalances and competitiveness of the EU countries. The 10 year time series of the MIP scoreboard indicators are displayed in this document in chapters 1 (by year) and chapter 4 (by country).  Table 1 lists the MIP scoreboard indicators together with detailed information on their sources.

The cut-off date for the data, that is the date on which the data were extracted from the Eurostat database for the preparation of this document, was the 1st November 2014. For additional information about the data, please contact ESTAT-MIP@ec.europa.eu.

Table 1. MIP scoreboard indicators

Indicator || Source

Institution || Statistical domain

3 year average of Current account balance as % of GDP || Eurostat || BoP/NA

Net international investment position as % of GDP || Eurostat/ECB || BoP/NA

% change (3 years) of Real effective exchange rate || DG ECFIN ||

% change (5 years) Share of world exports || Eurostat, IMF || BoP

% change (3 years) of  Nominal unit labour cost || Eurostat || NA

% change (1 year) of House prices - deflated || Eurostat || Price Stat/NA

Private credit flow as % of GDP || Eurostat || NA --> FA

Private debt as % of GDP || Eurostat || NA --> FA

General government gross debt (EDP) as % of GDP || Eurostat || GFS

3 year average of Unemployment rate || Eurostat || LFS

% change (1 year) of Total financial sector liabilities || Eurostat || NA --> FA

Note: NA- National Accounts; BoP – Balance of Payments; FA – Financial Accounts; GFS – Government Finance Statistics; and LFS – Labour Force Survey/Labour Market Statistics

Supplementing the MIP scoreboard indicators, a list of 28 auxiliary indicators (Table 2) provides additional information on aspects linked to the general macroeconomic situation, nominal and real convergence inside and outside the EU and the euro area, detailed data on the external liabilities, including foreign direct investment and net external debt, and social statistics. The auxiliary indicators enhance the information base for understanding potential imbalances, as well as the adjustment capacity of the economy. The auxiliary indicators are also presented in this Statistical Annex by year (in chapter 2) and by country (in chapter 5).

Table 2. Auxiliary indicators

Indicator || Source

Institution || Statistical domain

% change (1 year) of Real GDP || Eurostat || NA

Gross Fixed Capital Formation as % of GDP || Eurostat || NA

Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D as % of GDP || Eurostat || Business Statistics/NA

Net Lending/Borrowing as % of GDP || Eurostat || BoP/NA

Net External Debt  as % of GDP || Eurostat/ECB || BoP/NA

Inward FDI Flows as % of GDP || Eurostat || BoP/NA

Inward FDI Stocks as % of GDP || Eurostat/ECB || BoP/NA

Net Trade Balance of Energy Products as % of GDP || Eurostat || International Trade/NA

% change (3 years) of Real Effective Exchange Rates - EA trading partners || DG ECFIN ||

% change (5 years) of Share of OECD exports || Eurostat/OECD || BoP

% change (5 years) of Terms of Trade || Eurostat || NA

% change (1 year) of Export Market Shares - in volume || IMF ||

% change (1 year) of Labour Productivity || Eurostat || NA

% change (10 years) of Nominal ULC || Eurostat || NA

% change (10 years) of  ULC performance related to EA || DG ECFIN ||

% change (3 years) of Nominal HPI || Eurostat || Price Statistics

Residential Construction as % of GDP || Eurostat || NA

Private Debt as % of GDP - non consolidated || Eurostat || NA --> FA

Financial Sector Leverage (debt to equity) || Eurostat || NA --> FA

% change (1 year) of Employment || Eurostat || NA

Activity Rate (15-64 years) || Eurostat || LFS

Long-term Unemployment Rate (% of active population) || Eurostat

Youth Unemployment Rate (% of active population in the same age group) || Eurostat

Young People not in Education, Employment or Training (% of total population) || Eurostat

People at Risk of Poverty or Social Exclusion (% of total population) || Eurostat || SILC

At risk of Poverty rate (% of total population) || Eurostat

Severe Materially deprived People (% of total population) || Eurostat

People Living in Households with Very Low Work Intensity (% of population aged 0-59) || Eurostat

Note: NA- National Accounts; BoP – Balance of Payments; FA – Financial Accounts; LFS – Labour Force Survey/Labour Market Statistics; SILC – Statistics on Income and Living Conditions

In chapter 3 the data is displayed for each MIP indicator separately allowing for easy comparisons of countries for the 10 year time series. Additionally, in the same chapter short descriptions of the indicators as well as detailed information on sources and methods employed for their compilation are provided.

Statistical methodology improvements

In comparison to last year, the quality of the MIP underlying data has significantly improved in the course of 2014. In particular, the adoption of the new accounting framework for National Accounts (ESA 2010 replacing ESA 95) and the new manual for Balance of Payments (BPM6 replacing BPM5) led to a better and more harmonised measurement of national economies. In addition, for some of the MIP indicators, the production of statistical data has been complemented by new inventories (House Price Index), and updated quality information (Unemployment and EDP).

The ESA 2010 differs in scope as well as in concepts from its predecessor ESA 95 reflecting developments with regard to measuring modern economies, advances in methodological research and the needs of users. The structure of the ESA 2010 is consistent with the worldwide guidelines on national accounting set out in the System of National Accounts 2008 (2008 SNA). Detailed information about the impact of the implementation of ESA 2010 can be found on the Eurostat website – ESA2010 web section.

In addition to the new standards in the National Accounts domain, the new version of the Balance of Payments Manual (BPM6)[1] has also been adopted in 2014. The main changes introduced by the new manual are intended to improve the consistency of the BoP framework with the SNA2008 and thus also with ESA 2010 in terms of terminology, sector classification and treatment of similar transactions in a consistent way, as well as increasing the focus on balance sheet vulnerability issues. As a result also the methodological consistency of the MIP indicators based on data from these two domains has improved.

The data according to the BPM6 is available for certain countries only with limited back calculations. As a result, at the moment of publication of the AMR, the 10 year long time series of MIP indicators derived from Balance of Payments (see Tables 1 and 2) are not always available on a BPM6 basis. In the data tables of this Statistical Annex whenever only BPM5 data were available, they were marked in italics. In addition, to illustrate the magnitude of the changes, in the following subsection the information on the impact is provided for the countries which supplied the data according to both standards.

The cumulated burden on national compilers of moving to a new methodological standard and collection system changes may in the next few years lead to routine revisions slightly larger than usual.

Impact on MIP indicators

The changes in methodology described above impacted on ten MIP scoreboard indicators (all except the Unemployment rate). The impact was twofold: on numerator side whenever data coming from National Accounts or Balance of Payments have been used and/or on denominator/deflator side whenever expressed in relation to GDP. The detailed information on the impact on the most recent data for the eleven headline indicators is provided below. Values based on the preceding standards (ESA 95/BPM5) are available at Eurostat dedicated web section.

Overall, most of the MIP relevant data are produced in statistical frameworks or domains (as described in the Tables 1 and 2) with a long track record, well-known quality profiles and legal framework based on domain specific regulations, which even if not fully harmonised define the elements of basic quality assurance. As regards the interpretation of the MIP scoreboard indicators and the quality of related data, a summary of issues to be noted per domain follows.

External imbalances

The combined effect of the introduction of BPM6 and ESA2010 and of the other statistical changes has not been homogenous across Member States in terms of sign and size for the BoP related MIP indicators. In some cases it has been moderate and in others quite large. However, as a general consideration, the overall effect was more driven by the impact of BMP6 on the numerator than the impact of ESA2010 on GDP. This was particularly true for the Current Account scoreboard indicator. The effect has been positive for some Member States and negative for others. In some cases this has not been homogenous on the 10 years of analysis either. For example, Latvian three years average of Current Account and International Investment Position moved upwards with the new methodologies until 2009 and downwards from 2010 to 2013.

Table 3. Impact on 3 years average of Current Account balance as % of GDP

3.5 pp to 0.5 pp || MT, HU, ES, FR

0.5 pp to 0 pp || PT, CZ, PL, BE, RO, SE, UK

0 pp to - 0.5 pp || EL, HR, IT, SI, DK, LT, FI, LU

-0.5 pp to -3.5 pp || DE, EE, AT, LV, IE

Note: 3years BPM6 data for Bulgaria, Cyprus, Netherlands and Slovakia are missing.

Concerning the impact of the new methodologies on the three years average of Current Account expressed as percentage of GDP, this has on average shifted the ratio downward by 0.3 percentage points between 2011 and 2013. Nevertheless, the effect has not been homogenous across the countries. For 2013 the impact ranged between -2.9 p.p. for Ireland and 3.1 p.p. for Malta. In both cases the difference was mostly driven by the incorporation of Special Purpose Entities (SPE). Table 3 summarises the impact at Member State level on the Current Account ratio to GDP.

Table 4. Impact on Net International Investment Position as % of GDP

35 pp to 8 pp || LU, MT, FR, HU

8  pp to 0 pp || ES, CZ, PT, PL, SI, EE

0 pp to - 8 pp || LV, RO, LT, AT, IT, EL, SE, DE, FI

-8 pp to -75 pp || UK, NL, CY

Note: France is based on 2012 data. BPM6 data for Belgium, Bulgaria, Denmark, Ireland, Croatia, Slovakia are missing

Table 4 summarises the impact at Member State level on the Net International Investment Position ratio to GDP. The impact on Net International Investment Position expressed in % of GDP was also diverse among countries yet on average larger. Disregarding the sign, the impact between 2011 and 2013 has been on average 8.2 p.p. whereas it was only 0.5 p.p. for the three years Current Account average. The average effect taking into account the sign of the changes has been an increase by 0.3 percentage points of the International Investment Positions.

Two countries were particularly affected by the change, Cyprus where the IIP/GDP data for 2013 is 71.1 p.p. lower than with the previous methodology and Luxembourg where the indicator for the same year is 32.3 p.p. higher. Methodological changes in the treatment of SPEs and their operations are the main reason underpinning these divergences.

Regarding the Export Market Shares indicator, the overall balance of goods and services has not changed substantially with implementation of BPM6, but on the individual accounts (goods and services separately) the changes have a considerable impact, mostly because of the new treatment of merchanting, the application of the economic ownership principle and the treatment of financial intermediation services changes indirectly measured (impacting services). Table 5 summarises the impact at Member State level on the export market shares indicator.

Table 5. Impact on % change (5 years) Share of world exports

over 4pp || EE, HR,LU,RO

0pp to 4pp || BE,IE,LT,PT,SE,UK,AT

-1pp to 0pp || CZ,DK,IT,HU

- 4pp to -1pp || DE,FR,LV,FI

Note: BPM6 data for Bulgaria, Greece, Spain, Cyprus, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia are missing

The magnitude of the impact is more pronounced for countries having a significant participation in trade of goods for processing, especially for small open economies like Latvia, Romania or Estonia. For certain countries the impact might be explained by the high importance of financial services in their economies (e.g. Luxembourg or Ireland).

The numerator was built on the data using BPM5 and BPM6 standards. Priority has been given to the information according to BPM6, whenever available, and BPM5 data has been used only for completing the scoreboard. The data based on the preceding standard is marked in italics in the tables of this Statistical Annex. In order to compute the scoreboard indicators on Export Market Shares of world total (headline indicator) and OECD total (auxiliary one), the data for their denominators come from IMF and OECD sources respectively. The aggregated data used as denominator, published by these two institutions, are based on BPM5 standard.

As regards Real Effective Exchange Rate (REER), the headline indicator has been impacted by the introduction of the new ESA only in terms of changes to domestic supplies used in the construction of double export weights. The magnitude of the impact was small – of around 0.1-0.2 pp difference comparing to the previous standards.

The impact on the Nominal Unit Labour Cost (3-year percentage change) of the implementation of the ESA 2010 methodology and other statistical modifications (e.g., benchmarking on the 2011 Population Census results and the improvement of the labour force survey methodology) varied somewhat across Member States. Among the 27 Member States with data available based on the old and the new ESA compilation standards, the difference clustered from -1.5 to 1.5 percentage points in 2013 for two-thirds  of the countries (2012 for Poland), whereas a larger difference of up to +4.3 percentage points was observed in the rest of countries. Overall, the change introduced by the methodological change and quality improvement was not very pronounced in a great majority of the countries. Table 6 summarises the impact at Member State level on the Nominal Unit Labour cost indicator.

Table 6. Impact on % change (3 years) in Nominal unit labour cost

1.5pp to 4.5pp || SK, LV, SI, BG, EL, SE, IE

0 to 1.5pp || AT, CZ, CY, DE, NL, FI, DK, ES, EE, PL, RO, MT

-4.5pp to 0 || UK, PT, LU, FR, LT, IT, BE, HU

Note: ESA 2010 data for Croatia is missing. Figures for 2013, except Poland (2012).

For the Unit Labour Cost indicator, some values were affected by the use of the Population Census 2011 results, this is the case e.g. for Latvia. For some Member States the indicator was affected by the revision of the questionnaire of the Labour Force Survey, e.g. Poland.[2]

Internal imbalances

The implementation of ESA 2010 requirements and incorporation of other statistical adjustments had an impact on the revised time series of Private Sector Credit Flow statistics. The impact has not been homogenous across Member States in terms of sign and size for the MIP scoreboard indicator. In most countries the upwards change has concerned only the recent years, whereas in few others downwards revisions were visible on the whole 10 year long time series. Moreover, for some countries the values slightly decreased or increased in non-subsequent years during the whole 10 years period. Table 7 summarises the impact at Member State level on the Private Sector Credit Flow ratio to GDP.

Table 7. Impact on Private Sector Credit Flow as % of GDP

over 3pp || BE, EE, LU

0pp to 3pp || CZ, DK, EL, ES, FR, IT, LT, MT, NL, PL, PT, SI, UK

-2pp to 0pp || BG, DE, IE, HR, LV, HU, RO, SK, FI, SE

over -2pp || CY, AT

The new ESA and incorporation of other statistical adjustments resulted in decreased values of Private Sector Debt as % of GDP for most of the Member States. This downwards change could be attributed mainly to the increased level of GDP used in the denominator; some countries reported, however, revised data which resulted in an increase of the indicator. The reclassification of SPE to the non-financial corporations and of the holding companies from non-financial corporations to the financial corporations, were the major reasons for the changes in some of these countries with an effect on the consolidated data within the impacted sector. A certain part of the changes relates to the benchmark changes and other data source improvements. Few countries reported a significant change of Private Sector Debt underlying statistics. However, high revisions concerned only particular years. Table 8 summarises the impact at Member State level on the Private Sector Debt ratio to GDP:

Table 8. Impact on Private Sector Debt as % of GDP

over 14pp || BE, CY, LU

0pp to 14pp || EL, LV, NL

-15pp to 0pp || CZ, DK, DE, EE, ES, FR, HR, IT, LT, MT, PL, RO, SI, SK, FI, SE, UK

over -15pp || BG, IE, HU, AT, PT

As regards the House Price Indices indicator, among the statistical gaps highlighted by the financial and economic crisis, real estate price statistics was considered one of the areas to be urgently developed. Particular attention has been devoted to developing internationally comparable House Price Indices (HPI). Since the beginning of 2013, with the entering into force of the reference legislation[3], the monitoring of changes in house prices is based on data regularly compiled by the Member States and transmitted to Eurostat. The regulation ensures coverage and timeliness of house price data and metadata, delivered by 22 Member States in Euro-SDMX Metadata Structure (ESMS) format. In addition, 27 Member States (all but Greece) submitted to Eurostat the HPI Inventory of sources and methods by September 2014.

Compared with other indicators, officially released House Price Indices (HPI) had, for some Member States, a shorter historical coverage. The Member States, Eurostat, ECB, OECD and BIS have continued working on this to improve the length of the annual series by using all available proxy data and by applying relevant econometric techniques. With respect to the last year, long time series covering the last 10 years (from 2004 onwards) are now available for five additional Member States: for Austria and Greece, data from the respective National Central Banks are currently used. For Spain, Latvia and Cyprus, data were back-calculated by Eurostat and approved by the NSIs. Starting years of back-calculated series are flagged accordingly.

The denominator (national accounts deflator for private final consumption expenditure of households and NPIs) of this indicator has been affected by the new ESA 2010. The impact at Member States level is minimal on the 2013 values of the indicator.

The adoption of ESA 2010 impacted the General Government Debt as a percentage of GDP. Table 9 summarises the impact at Member State level on the 2013 value, where a positive sign means a higher government debt relative to GDP and a negative sign a lower debt. In many cases the reclassification of units inside the government sector impacted the figures of the general government debt nominator (these units mainly concerned: public financial defeasance structures, oil stockholding agencies, deposit guarantee funds and public captive financial institutions). For three countries (Estonia, Greece, and Poland) the time series in ESA 2010 are shorter than 10 years, For the purpose of this document Eurostat completed the missing years by ESA 95 series.

Table 9. Impact on General Government Debt as % of GDP

over 4pp || BE, IE, HR, AT

1pp to 4pp || DK, CZ, FR, PT, FI, UK

0pp to 1pp || DE, EE, EL, ES, IT, CY, LV, LU, HU, RO, SI, SK

-1pp to 0pp || BG, LT, MT, NL, PL, SE

By regular checking of the application of general methodological rules and its methodological decisions related to the general government sector debt, by analysing the data reported by Member States in the EDP notification tables, questionnaire related to the notification tables, supplementary tables on financial crisis, as well as through discussions with national authorities during EDP standard dialogue visits, Eurostat keeps strengthening its verification procedures.

Concerning Total Financial Sector Liabilities, a large majority of Member States do not show any change as compared to the ESA2010 and ESA1995 for year 2012 in terms of the indicator (year on year change). For the remaining countries the changes are very limited, mainly due to reclassification of units into the financial corporation.

Regarding the Unemployment Rate indicator, the inclusion of the Population Census 2011 results is an important source of improved population estimates, which has led to backward revisions for unemployment data in a number of Member States. Compared to the 2014 Statistical Annex, for several Member States the Population Census 2011 results are now included in their revised unemployment time series. Reconstructed series are flagged accordingly. The unemployment rate of France has been revised downwards. This revision is mainly due to methodological changes to the LFS.

Improving the quality framework and ongoing work                   

The reliability of the MIP and its smooth implementation depends to a great extent on the availability and quality of the MIP relevant statistics. The statistical information has to be relevant and fit for the purpose. For that reason, the scoreboard indicators are regularly reviewed; the underlying statistical methodology and the statistical production process are constantly improved.

On three occasions (November 2011, 2012 and 2013), the ECOFIN Council invited the Commission (Eurostat) to take all necessary initiatives to assure a reliable procedure for the compilation of all these indicators as well as a continuous improvement of the underlying statistical information. At the same time, the Council invited the European Statistical System (ESS) and the European System of Central Banks (ESCB) to work together on improving underlying statistics and to ensure their comparability[4]. 

In response to the Council requests, the Commission adopted on 7 June 2013 a Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the provision and quality of statistics for the macroeconomic imbalances procedure (COM(2013) 342 final). This Proposal (the MIP Statistics Quality Regulation) put forward by the Commission aims to set up an enhanced and harmonised quality and monitoring framework for MIP- relevant statistics. The MIP Statistics Quality Regulation is currently under discussion in the Council and the European Parliament. 

As the statistics underlying the MIP indicators are based on EU legislation but compiled by the European Statistical System (ESS) and the European System of Central Banks (ESCB), the Committee on Monetary, Financial and Balance of Payment Statistics (CMFB) set up a Task Force on the quality of the statistics underlying the MIP indicators in 2013. In its final report presented to the CMFB in 2014 a concrete set of actions in the form of a work programme was proposed and further updated in an ESS-ESCB communication/work programme on quality assurance of the statistics underlying the MIP.

Following the implementation of the new standards in the field of Balance of Payments, Eurostat is actively working together with the responsible national authorities on ensuring the provision of longer time series. On the basis of the more exhaustive statistical information an in-depth analysis of the impact of the new standards will be carried out in 2015. Eurostat foresees to undertake similar actions in the domain of Financial Accounts and other domains where the metadata information is lacking.

Chapter 1: Tables by year - Headline indicators

Table 1.1: MIP Scoreboard 2013

Table 1.2: MIP Scoreboard 2012

Table 1.3: MIP Scoreboard 2011

Table 1.4: MIP Scoreboard 2010

Table 1.5: MIP Scoreboard 2009

Table 1.6: MIP Scoreboard 2008

Table 1.7: MIP Scoreboard 2007

Table 1.8: MIP Scoreboard 2006

Table 1.9: MIP Scoreboard 2005

Table 1.10: MIP Scoreboard 2004

Chapter 2: Tables by year - Auxiliary indicators used in the economic reading of the MIP scoreboard

Table 2.1: Auxiliary indicators, 2013

Table 2.1 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2013

Table 2.2: Auxiliary indicators, 2012

Table 2.2 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2012

Table 2.3: Auxiliary indicators, 2011

Table 2.3 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2011

Table 2.4: Auxiliary indicators, 2010

Table 2.4 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2010

Table 2.5: Auxiliary indicators, 2009

Table 2.5 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2009

Table 2.6: Auxiliary indicators, 2008

Table 2.6 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2008

Table 2.7: Auxiliary indicators, 2007

Table 2.7 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2007

Table 2.8: Auxiliary indicators, 2006

Table 2.8 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2006

Table 2.9: Auxiliary indicators, 2005

Table 2.9 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2005

Table 2.10: Auxiliary indicators, 2004

Table 2.10 (continued): Auxiliary indicators, 2004

Chapter 3: Tables by indicator

Table 3.1: 3 year average of Current Account Balance as % of GDP

Table 3.2: Current Account Balance as % of GDP (BoP data)

Table 3.3: Net International Investment Position as % of GDP

Table 3.4: % change (3 years) of Real Effective Exchange Rate (42 IC) with HIPC deflators

Table 3.5: % y-o-y change in Real Effective Exchange Rate (42 IC) with HIPC deflators

Table 3.6: % change (5 years) in Export Market Shares

Table 3.7: % y-o-y change in Export Market Shares

Table 3.8: % change (3 years) in Nominal ULC

Table 3.9: % y-o-y change in Nominal ULC

Table 3.10: % y-o-y change in Deflated House Prices

Table 3.11: Private Sector Credit Flow as % of GDP – CO

Table 3.12: Private Sector Debt as % of GDP – CO

Table 3.13: General Government sector Debt as % of GDP

Table 3.14: 3 years average of Unemployment Rate

Table 3.15: Unemployment Rate

Table 3.16: % y-o-y change in Total Financial Sector Liabilities

Table 3.17: Total Financial Sector Liabilities - millions, national currency

Table 3.18: % y-o-y change in real GDP

Table 3.19: Gross Fixed Capital Formation as % of GDP

Table 3.20: Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D as % of GDP

Table 3.21: Net Lending / Borrowing as % of GDP, BoP data

Table 3.22: Net External Debt as % of GDP

Table 3.23: FDI Inflows as % of GDP

Table 3.24: Inward FDI Stocks as % of GDP

Table 3.25: Net Trade Balance of Energy Products as % of GDP

Table 3.26: % change (3 years) in REER vs. EA

Table 3.27: % change (5 years) in Terms of Trade

Table 3.28: % change (5 years) Export Performance vs. Advanced Economies

Table 3.29: % y-o-y change in Export Market Shares, goods and services, volume

Table 3.30: % y-o-y change in Labour Productivity

Table 3.31: % change (10 years) in Nominal ULC

Table 3.32: % change (10 years) in ULC performance relative to the EA

Table 3.33: % change (3 years) in Nominal House Prices

Table 3.34: Residential Construction as % of GDP

Table 3.35: Private Sector Debt as % of GDP, NCO

Table 3.36: Financial Sector Leverage (debt to equity in %)

Table 3.37: % y-o-y change in Employment

Table 3.38: Activity Rate (15-64 years)

Table 3.39: Long-term Unemployment Rate (% of active population)

Table 3.40: Youth Unemployment Rate (% of active population in the same age group)

Table 3.41: Young People not in Employment, Education or Training (% of total population)

Table 3.42: People At-risk of Poverty or Social Exclusion (% of total population)

Table 3.43: At-risk of Poverty Rate (% of total population)

Table 3.44: Severe Material Deprivation (% of total population)

Table 3.45: Persons Living in Households with Very Low Work Intensity (% of population aged 0-59)

Chapter 4: Tables by Member States - Headline indicators

Table 4.1: The MIP scoreboard for Belgium

Table 4.2: The MIP scoreboard for Bulgaria

Table 4.3: The MIP scoreboard for Czech Republic

Table 4.4: The MIP scoreboard for Denmark

Table 4.5: The MIP scoreboard for Germany

Table 4.6: The MIP scoreboard for Estonia

Table 4.7: The MIP scoreboard for Ireland

Table 4.8: The MIP scoreboard for Greece

Table 4.9: The MIP scoreboard for Spain

Table 4.10: The MIP scoreboard for France

Table 4.11: The MIP scoreboard for Croatia

Table 4.12: The MIP scoreboard for Italy

Table 4.13: The MIP scoreboard for Cyprus

Table 4.14: The MIP scoreboard for Latvia

Table 4.15: The MIP scoreboard for Lithuania

Table 4.16: The MIP scoreboard for Luxembourg

Table 4.17: The MIP scoreboard for Hungary

Table 4.18: The MIP scoreboard for Malta

Table 4.19: The MIP scoreboard for Netherlands

Table 4.20: The MIP scoreboard for Austria

Table 4.21: The MIP scoreboard for Poland

Table 4.22: The MIP scoreboard for Portugal

Table 4.23: The MIP scoreboard for Romania

Table 4.24: The MIP scoreboard for Slovenia

Table 4.25: The MIP scoreboard for Slovakia

Table 4.26: The MIP scoreboard for Finland

Table 4.27: The MIP scoreboard for Sweden

Table 4.28: The MIP scoreboard for United Kingdom

Chapter 5: Tables by Member States - Auxiliary indicators used in the economic reading of the MIP scoreboard

Table 5.1: Auxiliary indicators for Belgium

Table 5.1 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Belgium

Table 5.2: Auxiliary indicators for Bulgaria

Table 5.2 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Bulgaria

Table 5.3: Auxiliary indicators for Czech Republic

Table 5.3 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Czech Republic

Table 5.4: Auxiliary indicators for Denmark

Table 5.4 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Denmark

Table 5.5: Auxiliary indicators for Germany

Table 5.5 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Germany

Table 5.6: Auxiliary indicators for Estonia

Table 5.6 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Estonia

Table 5.7: Auxiliary indicators for Ireland

Table 5.7 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Ireland

Table 5.8: Auxiliary indicators for Greece

Table 5.8 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Greece

Table 5.9: Auxiliary indicators for Spain

Table 5.9 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Spain

Table 5.10: Auxiliary indicators for France

Table 5.10 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for France

Table 5.11: Auxiliary indicators for Croatia

Table 5.11 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Croatia

Table 5.12: Auxiliary indicators for Italy

Table 5.12 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Italy

Table 5.13: Auxiliary indicators for Cyprus

Table 5.13 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Cyprus

Table 5.14: Auxiliary indicators for Latvia

Table 5.14 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Latvia

Table 5.15: Auxiliary indicators for Lithuania

Table 5.15 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Lithuania

Table 5.16: Auxiliary indicators for Luxembourg

Table 5.16 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Luxembourg

Table 5.17: Auxiliary indicators for Hungary

Table 5.17 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Hungary

Table 5.18: Auxiliary indicators for Malta

Table 5.18 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Malta

Table 5.19: Auxiliary indicators for Netherlands

Table 5.19 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Netherlands

Table 5.20: Auxiliary indicators for Austria

Table 5.20 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Austria

Table 5.21: Auxiliary indicators for Poland

Table 5.21 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Poland

Table 5.22: Auxiliary indicators for Portugal

Table 5.22 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Portugal

Table 5.23: Auxiliary indicators for Romania

Table 5.23 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Romania

Table 5.24: Auxiliary indicators for Slovenia

Table 5.24 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Slovenia

Table 5.25: Auxiliary indicators for Slovakia

Table 5.25 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Slovakia

Table 5.26: Auxiliary indicators for Finland

Table 5.26 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Finland

Table 5.27: Auxiliary indicators for Sweden

Table 5.27 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for Sweden

Table 5.28: Auxiliary indicators for United Kingdom

Table 5.28 (continued): Auxiliary indicators for United Kingdom

[1] The full range of changes may be found on: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/bop/2007/bop6comp.htm

 (see Appendix 1 of BPM6 “Conversion Matrix from BPM5 to BPM6”).

[2] See footnotes in tables for indication of breaks in the time series of concerned Member States

[3] Commission Regulation (EU) 93/2013 as regards establishing owner-occupied housing price indices

[4] Council Conclusions of ECOFIN Council meeting, 9 November 2011,13 November 2012 and 15 November 2013 http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/11/st15/st15781-re02.en11.pdf