PLATFORM FOR DISCUSSION
Speaking note
NATIONAL BANK OF THE REPUBLIC
SPEAKER: Ana Mitreska, Vice Governor
OF NORTH MACEDONIA
info@nbrm.mk
DATE: 20-22 November, 2019
www.nbrm.mk
LOCATION: Prague, Czech Republic
GLOBAL IMBALANCES, EXTERNAL SECTOR VULNERABILITY AND CAPITAL

FLOWS - SELECTED COUNTRIES OVERVIEW
This Speaking note was prepared for the 42nd Meeting of the Governor's Club of Central
Asia, Black Sea and Balkan Countries, 2019
Contributors to the Note: Dijana Janevska Stefanova, Vesna Stojchevska and Danica Unevska
Andonova1
Department: Monetary Policy and Research
1
Special thanks to Aneta Krstevska, Chief Economist, and Biljana Davidovska Stojanova, Monetary Policy and Research
Department, for the useful comments.
Global imbalances, external sector vulnerability and capital flows - selected
countries overview
Overview of the global external imbalances
The discussion on the issue of global imbalances and the overall profile of the external
sector comes at a very proper moment, given the rollback of the globalisation and
rising trade tensions. The recent changes might affect the external imbalances globally, if not
directly, then indirectly by affecting macroeconomic fundamentals of the economies. Tariffs can
define productivity, output, and employment over the longer term, and thus affect the potential
to grow. In the last three decades, the decline of tariffs gave ground to global value chains,
enhanced competition, and improved productivity across countries.
Chart 1 Tariffs and Global Value Chain Participation2
(Value added weighted average over countries and sectors percent)
50 6
5.5
45
5
4.5
40
4
35
3.5
3
30
2.5
25 2
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Average GVC participation Average tariffs (right scale)
Source: Source: IMF, WEO April 2019
Global external imbalances have been at the forefront in the macro - discussions and
risk assessments. One of the first steps when scrutinizing external positions and imbalances is
the current account position. Current account imbalances can be healthy or a sign of
2
Chart extracted from the IMF WEO, April 2019.
macroeconomic and financial stress. In many cases, current account imbalances can be
entirely appropriate, even necessary. For instance in converging economies, with vast
investment opportunities, they benefit from foreign funding, and can afford to accumulate debts
(by running current account deficits), provided they can repay them out of future income.
Sometimes, however, external imbalances can point to macroeconomic and financial
stress. Economies that accumulate external liabilities on too large scale may become vulnerable
to sudden stops in capital flows that force abrupt cuts in spending-making financial crises more
likely.
Before we do a stocktaking of the current external imbalances, it would be useful to
provide for a longer-term view of their evolution. The occurrence of the global crisis had
a strong impact on narrowing the global current account surpluses and deficits. In the aftermath
of the global financial crisis, global current account imbalances (the absolute sum of surpluses
and deficits) declined sharply from about 6 percent of global GDP in 2007 to about 31⁄2 percent
in 2013. The narrowing of aggregate current account imbalances was led by the United States on
the deficit side and by China, Japan, and oil exporters on the surplus side. Meanwhile, the current
account balance of the euro area moved from a close balance in 2007 to a surplus of about 21⁄2
percent of GDP in 2013, driven mainly by sharp external adjustments in most euro area debtor
economies, while surpluses in Germany and the Netherlands remained large. In key emerging
market and developing economies, current account deficits expanded, supported by easy global
financing conditions enabled by quantitative easing policies in advanced economies. Yet, after
2013 this process stalled, and we do see immense concentration of imbalances in
advanced economies. These economies on aggregate have seen some increase in their current
account deficits, led primarily by the United States, and a rise in current account surpluses, mainly
in the euro area and Japan.
Chart 2 Change in Global Current Account Imbalances, 2006 -183
(Percent of world GDP)
Change in Global Current Account Imbalances, 2006-18
(percent of World GDP)
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
USA GBR Other EA Other JPN CHN Oil
-0.5
EMDEs AEs exporters
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
2006-2007 2013-2014 2017-2018
Source: IMF, External sector report, 2019
The decline of current account balances over the past decade reflects a combination
of macroeconomic policies and terms-of-trade effects. Fiscal policy and credit
conditions have been key drivers of current account dynamics since the crisis, such that
economies with tight (easy) fiscal policies and credit contractions (expansions) have generally
experienced an increase (decline) in their current account balances. However, the policy
drivers have shifted. In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, the narrowing of
deficits in advanced economies was driven mainly by private sector demand
compression and deleveraging, and despite countercyclical fiscal policy efforts. This
was mirrored by lower current account balances in surplus economies, largely reflecting a collapse
in global demand and trade. Since 2013 divergent fiscal policy stances and credit conditions in
key economies have contributed to the rotation of imbalances toward advanced economies.
Advanced economies' aggregate current account surpluses (euro area, Japan) have remained
large or risen further since 2013, reflecting a combination of lower energy prices, tighter fiscal
policy, and continued private sector deleveraging in some cases. Meanwhile, aggregate current
account deficits of advanced economies rose slightly, underpinned by renewed fiscal easing in
the United States.
3
Chart extracted from the IMF External Sector Report, 2019.
Chart 3 Current account and fiscal balances in Euro Area and USA
Euro Area USA
Current account and fiscal balance, as %
Current account and fiscal balance, as %
of GDP of GDP
4.0 0.0
-2.0
2.0
-4.0
0.0
-6.0
-2.0
-8.0
-4.0
-10.0
-6.0
-12.0
-8.0 -14.0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Fiscal balance Current account balance Fiscal balance Current account balance
Source: IMF, WEO October 2019, database
The dynamics of the balances is not always indicative on how appropriate the external
position is. The deviation of the current account from its fundamentals and desirable
policies provides for additional substantial information on the correction needed.
According to the IMF (2019), 35-45 percent of overall current account surpluses and
deficits were deemed excessive in 2018. Higher-than-warranted balances remained
centered in the euro area as a whole (driven by Germany and the Netherlands) and in other
advanced economies (Korea, Singapore), while lower-than-warranted balances remained
concentrated in the United Kingdom, the United States, and some emerging market economies
(Argentina, Indonesia). China's external position was assessed to be in line with fundamentals
and desirable policies, as its current account surplus narrowed further, although achieving a
lasting external rebalancing will require gradual reining in expansionary macroeconomic policies
and adopting further structural reforms.
The mirror image of the current account balances, are the financial flows. After the
crisis, global map of financial flows changed, mostly due to the shift in the global financial
conditions and relative growth differentials between emerging and advanced economies.
Following quantitative easing programs in advanced economies in the aftermath of the global
financial crisis, portfolio and other investment capital flows to emerging market and developing
economies intensified, which, together with accommodative macroeconomic policies, contributed
to currency appreciation pressures and larger current account deficits. These trends, however,
started to reverse beginning with the 2013 taper tantrum episode as growth differentials
between advanced and emerging market economies narrowed and the prospects of monetary
policy normalization in advanced economies gathered strength. Direct investment remained
relatively stable and less sensitive to changes in global financial conditions and US dollar
movements.
Despite the narrowing of global current account imbalances, stock imbalances have
continued to widen to reach record levels. At 40 percent of world GDP, the world's
net international investment position-the sum of net creditor and net debtor positions-is
now at a historical peak and four times larger than in the early 1990s. Among the top
debtors, the net international investment position of the United States is now close to -50 percent
of GDP, down about 40 percentage points since 2007.
Chart 4 Net International Investment Position (NIIP), 1990-20184
(Percent of world GDP)
Source: IMF, External sector report, 2019
The snapshot of the global external profile reveals narrowing of the imbalances after
the global crisis, and concentration in the advanced economies. Despite the lower
magnitude, large part of the current account imbalance seems not to be aligned with
the fundamental and desirable policies. Furthermore, lower flow gaps, visible through
4
Chart extracted from the IMF External Sector Report, 2019.
lower current account and financial flows, were not sufficient to curb stock imbalance
visible through the historically highest global NIP. Given the uncertain global environment,
driven by the rising trade tensions, external flow and stock imbalances could widen again,
although this will much depend on the assumed policy response in different countries.
Further disruptions to trade and supply chains are one of the major risks that can affect the
external imbalances, as well. Higher tariffs on bilateral trade can come at significant economic
cost, not only for the countries involved, but also for others. These effects are greatly amplified
by global supply chains, which transmit spillovers from bilateral tariffs, affecting countries up and
down the value chain. An intensification of trade tensions or a disorderly Brexit outcome-with
further repercussions for global growth and risk aversion-could, however, affect other economies
that are highly dependent on foreign demand and external financing. Over the medium term, in
absence of corrective policies, trade tensions could become entrenched, and further divergence
of external stock positions could trigger costly disruptive adjustments in key debtor economies
that could spill over to the rest of the world. According to Bloomberg analysis, the strongest
negative impact from the trade tensions could be felt in 2021, affecting the global GDP negatively
by 0.6 p.p., with several scenarios in place - failure of reaching an agreement and limited
escalation of the trade tensions; failure of reaching an agreement and trade war; and reaching
an agreement in 2020. It is imperative that all countries avoid policies that distort trade. Recent
trade policy actions are weighing on global trade flows, investment and growth, including through
confidence effects and the disruption of global supply chains, with no discernible impact on
external imbalances thus far, but risks remain.
External imbalances in the CESEE region countries
In the following section, we provide for a short overview on the external position of the region5,
analyzed through the current account position of the individual countries and the region as a
whole, as well as the international investment position.
The pre - crisis global context was marked with low aversion to risk, strong
confidence and global liquidity glut. The environment was conducive to rising cross -
border capital flows, which underpinned demand and led to significant deterioration
of current account balances. The burst of the crisis brought sudden reversal of capital flows,
5
This part of the presentation in focused on eleven counties, part of the CESEE region: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria,
Croatia, Hungary, Czech Republic, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Serbia and Slovenia.
loss of confidence and risk appetite, demand contraction and sharp correction of external
imbalances. A decade after the crisis, current account balances seem to be moderate across
board, with many of the countries even exhibiting surplus. The initial post - crisis adjustment
might have been cyclical in nature, and a correction process of unsustainable excesses.
Observing the dynamics, before the crisis the average CAD for the region6 equaled around 7% of
GDP. High deficits were present across the board, with the new EU member states like Czech
Republic (average current account of 3,9% of GDP), Poland (4,4% of GDP) and Slovenia (2% of
GDP) performing significantly better than some of the Western Balkans countries (Montenegro
with average current account of 44,6% of GDP, Serbia 18,8% and Bosnia and Herzegovina
13,5%). With the emergence of the crises adjustment in the current account occurred. The larger
the pre-crisis deficit, the larger the adjustment. On average the 2018 data shows around 10 p.p.
improvement in the current transactions balance. Strengthening of the current account position
is continuous, with gradual closing of the deficits. Some countries even exhibit surplus, such as
the case of Slovenia, Czech Republic, Croatia, Bulgaria and Hungary.
Chart 5 Current account
Source: IMF, BOP database
6
The averaged numbers exclude data for Montenegro and Serbia due to the shorter time span of their BOP series.
Current account adjustment
Source: IMF, BOP database
Observing the adjustment, through structural lenses, one can notice that the
adjustments in the current account, was predominantly driven by the balance of
goods and services. The deficit in the balance of goods narrowed from an average of 15.6%
of GDP in the 2000-2008 period to 10.6% of GDP, and in the following 2009-2013 sub-period to
even lower share of GDP in the last four years of 8.2% of GDP. Additionally, the surpluses in the
services shows steady increase, a dynamic that is more visible in economies with more developed
tourism sector. While the initial adjustment in the acute phase of the crisis was through
compression of imports, what followed afterwards was remarkable shift in export, which kept the
trade deficit markedly bellow the pre - crisis level. Hence, in 2018 the average trade balance
hovered around 8% of GDP, compared to 17% of GDP before the crisis. Imports is close to its
pre-crisis level, while the level of exports surpasses it by close to 10 p.p. of GDP. It indicates that
most of the countries managed to proceeds with their reforms on the external front, elevating
their export potential and enabling "quietness" of current accounts. Furthermore, looking into the
geographical direction of trade for the region, several countries, are heavily exposed to Germany
with a share of exports to Germany in total exports of around 30% or above. North Macedonia
alone has the largest increase of this share in the last decade (2008-2018) of around 33 p.p.
reaching 47% of total exports in 2018. The rising trade integration, indicates larger dependence
on external developments, and hence exposure to potential shocks.
Chart 6 Trade balance
Source: IMF, BOP database
The rising current account imbalance prior to the crisis reflected the strong economic
growth, supported by increased financial inflows, mostly in form of FDI and private
sector borrowing. Domestic private sector credit intensified, thus fueling domestic demand. As
for the fiscal position, as important driver of the current account dynamics, the reveals that in
most of the countries (except Hungary, Albania, Croatia) before the crisis fiscal stance was
prudent and with fiscal space was in place. The fiscal response to the crisis was
countercyclical, with fiscal position strengthening afterwards, but yet its impact on
the current account gap does seem to be consistent and visible across the time,
suggesting predominant role of the private domestic demand. Observing the data, one
can notice very strong growth of domestic demand before the crisis, on average of around 6%,
while as of 2009 until 2013 domestic demand was contracting. In the last couple of years it was
brought on a solid grounds, but yet the average growth is more modest at around 3.5%.
Chart 7 Domestic demand and fiscal balance
Current account and fiscal balance, as % of GDP
Real GDP and its components growth rates, in %
(average for the selected countries)
(average for the selected countries)
12.9 0.0
14.0
10.9
12.0
10.0
-1.9 -2.0
7.3
7.2 -2.4
8.0
6.1
4.8
6.0
4.2
-5.0
-4.4
3.5
3.3
4.0
-5.0
2.0
0.2
0.0
-8.0
-2.0 -0.6
-1.8
-10.0
-4.0
2000- 2008 2009- 2013 2014- 2018
GDP Domestic Demand Exports Imports
2000- 2008 2009- 2013 2014- 2018 Fiscal balance Current account balance
Source: Eurostat and NBRNM calculations. Source: IMF and NBRNM calculations.
Financial flows to and from advanced economies have been much weaker since the
global financial crisis. In particular, portfolio debt flows have weakened, reflecting a
combination of factors: large government debt asset purchases by central banks, increased
fragmentation in euro area debt markets, and much-reduced accumulation of reserves by
emerging market and developing economies. Other investment flows have also fallen sharply as
global banks reduced the size of their balance sheets after dramatic expansion of their cross-
border activities during the pre-crisis boom. On the other hand, foreign direct investment (FDI)
flows had actually increased slightly relative to the pre-crisis period.
The same notion holds for the region as well. Financial flows from the region have been
much weaker since the global financial crisis. In particular, other investment inflows have fallen
sharply and turn into small outflows due to the process of deleveraging. Foreign direct investment
(FDI) inflows also experienced slowdown, however the role of the direct investments in some
countries is still strong as they were still going through the "expansion phase" when it comes to
this type of flows. Portfolio debt flows have increased, reflecting a combination of factors, but
mostly as a result of government borrowing abroad by issuing government bonds.
Chart 8 Financial flows and their structure
Source: IMF BOP data.
Financial integration in emerging market and developing economies has risen
substantially over the past two decades, delivering benefits but also posing new
challenges. Guarding against a sudden stop or external crisis requires carefully monitoring of
different aspects of flow and stock imbalances. Although it seems that flow imbalances narrowed
in the region, for completing the picture it is essential to observe the stock positions, as well.
In the last couple of decades, the dynamics of the external balance sheet of the
region, examined through the net international investment position, pointed towards
a process of significant widening of the negative gap, in the run up to the global
financial crisis. Although, this trend to some extent slowed, IIP reached its peak in 2012 and
with the beginning of 2013 taper tantrum episode started to reverse. Despite the reversal, on
average it is still above the some of the benchmarks, such as the norm of the EC within the
macroeconomic imbalances procedure, that equals -35% of GDP.
Chart 9 Net International Investment Position
Source: IMF BOP data.
In order to have the complete picture, more granular view is important, as it can
reveal whether the pre-crisis mode of the rising financial exposure elevated the
external vulnerability of the region, and hence whether the adjustment which
followed was more abrupt and costly in economic terms. For instance, the larger weight
of direct investment (including the intercompany lending) should in principle improve the external
risk profile of the country, as the probability for sudden reversal is low, and in general it does not
yield future financing requirements for repayment of the obligations due. This is not the case with
portfolio investments, or the other investments, as debt creating flows, where the risk is higher,
both in terms of sudden reversals and rising future payment burden. Thus the structural analysis
reveals that for the region as a whole, before the crisis in 2007 the role of the direct investments
was significantly larger than that of the debt creating flows in creating international liabilities,
whereas it turned balanced in 2013. By the end of 2018 as expected, mostly through
deleveraging, the level of debt creating flows decreased.
Chart 10 Structure of NIIP
Source: IMF BOP data.
The simple analysis of the external sector profile in the region, reveal compression of
the current account gaps, slowdown in financial flows, and adjustment of the IIP
position. Some of the adjustments might be a reflection of the unsustainable pre-crisis
imbalances, some of them are cyclical, and some might be a result of structural shifts that boost
competiveness, enable export to grow and gaps to be narrowed. Whichever the cause, it is
critical to assess whether the adjustment and the current level are in line with what
the fundamentals and policies would suggest. For this reason, we use the latest available
results from the IMF external sector assessment and we construct a heat map to have broader
vision of where the region stands in terms of the external sector imbalances. The current
account focus offers a general conclusion that the region is broadly in line with
fundamentals, with five out of eleven counties have current account in line with fundamentals
according to the IMF estimations, and four have stronger position, while three show weaker
position than what the fundamentals suggest. The vulnerabilities are more visible, when
financial and NIIPs are observed, with several countries having moderately weaker
positions. This indicates necessity for further policy changes, or bold structural reforms to
improve the productivity and correct for the imbalances on the external front. The focus must be
even stronger, given the subdued global outlook and rising risks on global trade and GVCs. Most
of these countries are small and open, included in GVCs as well, indicating rising risks and need
for policies to reduces vulnerabilities, and prevent adverse spillovers.
Table 1
External sector assessment - latest Article IV reports
Current accunt Financial
REER possition NIIP position
possition flows
Albania
Bulgaria
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Croatia
Czech Republic
Hungary
Montenegro
North Macedonia
Poland
Romania
Serbia
Slovenia
Moderately Substantially
Stronger
Broadly in line
Weaker
Source: IMF, latest Article IV
Conclusion
The snapshot of the global external profile reveals narrowing of the imbalances after the global
crisis, and concentration of the imbalances in the advanced economies. Despite the lower
magnitude, close to half of the current account imbalance does not seem to be aligned with the
fundamentals and desirable policies. Furthermore, lower flow gaps, visible through lower current
account and financial flows, were not sufficient to curb stock imbalances visible through the
historically highest global NIIP. As far as CESEE the region is concerned, a simple analysis of the
external sector profile reveals compression of the current account gaps, slowdown in financial
flows, and adjustment of the IIP position. Some of the adjustments might be a reflection of the
unsustainable pre-crisis imbalances, some of them are cyclical, and some might be a result of
structural shifts that boost competiveness, enable export to grow and narrow the gaps. Latest
available results from the IMF external sector assessment points to a general conclusion that the
region's current account balances are broadly in line with fundamentals (five out of eleven
counties have current account in line with fundamentals, four have stronger position, while three
show weaker position than what the fundamentals suggest). The vulnerabilities are more visible,
when financial and NIIPs are observed, with several countries having moderately weaker positions
that indicates necessity for further policy changes, or bold structural reforms to improve the
productivity and correct for the imbalances on the external front. Looking into the future, given
the uncertain global environment and the rising trade tensions, external flows and stock
imbalances could widen again, although this would depend on the assumed policy responses in
different countries. Further disruptions to trade and supply chains are one of the major risks that
can affect the external imbalances. Higher tariffs on bilateral trade can come at significant
economic cost, not only for the countries involved. These effects are greatly amplified by global
supply chains, which transmit spillovers from bilateral tariffs, affecting countries up and down the
value chain. Thus now more than ever there is an urgent need for policies that reduce external
vulnerabilities, and prevent adverse spillovers.
Bibliography
1. IMF (2019), Growth Slowdown, Precarious Recovery, World Economic Outlook, April 2019
2. IMF (2019), Global Manufacturing Downturn, Rising Trade Barriers, World Economic
Outlook, October 2019
3. IMF (2019), The Dynamics of External Adjustment, External Sector Report, July 2019
4. IMF Country Report No. 19/29, Albania 2018 Article IV Consultation, January 2019
5. IMF Country Report No. 18/39, Bosnia And Herzegovina 2017 Article IV Consultation,
February 2018
6. IMF Country Report No. 19/83, Bulgaria 2019 Article IV Consultation, March 2019
7. IMF Country Report No. 19/46, Republic Of Croatia 2018 Article IV Consultation,
February 2019
8. IMF Country Report No. 19/160, Czech Republic 2019 Article IV Consultation, June 2019
9. IMF Country Report No. 18/252, Hungary 2018 Article IV Consultation, August 2018
10. IMF Country Report No. 19/32, FYR Macedonia 2018 Article IV Consultation, January
2019
11. IMF Country Report No. 19/293, Montenegro 2019 Article IV Consultation, September
2019
12. IMF Country Report No. 19/37, Republic Of Poland 2018 Article IV Consultation,
February 2019
13. IMF Country Report No. 19/278, Romania 2019 Article IV Consultation, August 2019
14. IMF Country Report No. 19/238, Republic of Serbia Staff Report for The 2019 Article IV,
July 2019
15. IMF Country Report No. 19/58, Republic of Slovenia 2018 Article IV Consultation,
February 2019
Appendix
Long- term challenges for current account balance
Total population growth
Total population growth
(%)
(%)
5.0
4.0
10.7
3.0
0.0
2.0
1.0
-5.0
-14.2
0.0
-10.0
-1.0
BiH
Serbia
-2.0 Poland
Croatia
Czechia Albania
Bulgaria Hungary Slovenia
Romania
Macedonia
Montenegro
-3.0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
North
EUROPE Western Europe Eastern Europe Southern Europe
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Total dependency ratio Total dependency ratio
(65+/(15-64)) (65+/(15-64))
80.0 80.0
70.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
60.0
40.0
50.0
30.0
20.0
40.0
10.0
30.0
0
20.0
10.0
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
EUROPE Western Europe Eastern Europe Southern Europe
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Old dependency ratio Old dependency ratio
(65+/(15-64))
(65+/(15-64))
60.0
50.0
45.0
40.0
50.0
35.0
30.0
25.0
40.0
20.0
15.0
30.0
10.0
5.0
0
20.0
10.0
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
EUROPE Western Europe Eastern Europe Southern Europe 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Child dependency ratio
Child dependency ratio
(65+/(15-64))
(65+/(15-64))
60.0
40.0
50.0
35.0
40.0
30.0
30.0
25.0
20.0
20.0
10.0
0
15.0
10.0
5.0
0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
EUROPE Western Europe Eastern Europe Southern Europe
Net International Investment Position, by countries
Current account balance and Fiscal balance (% of GDP)
Albania BiH Bulgaria Croatia Czechia Hungary
5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
3.0
2.3
2.0
1.2
0.9
0.8
0.2 0.1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
-0.8
-1.2
-1.4
-1.7
-1.7 -1.9
-2.0 -2.1
-2.9
-3.3
-5.0 -5.0 -5.0 -5.0 -4.1 -5.0 -3.6 -3.5 -5.0
-3.9
-3.9
-4.5
-5.1 -5.2
-6.1
-5.5
-6.1
-7.1
-7.2
-8.3
-10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0
-8.8
-9.6
-
-13.5
-15.0 12.0 -15.0 -15.0 -15.0 -15.0 -15.0
20002008 20092013 20142018 20002008 20092013 20142018 20002008 20092013 20142018 20002008 20092013 20142018 20002008 20092013 20142018 20002008 20092013 20142018
Montenegro N.Macedonia Poland Romania Serbia Slovenia
5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 10.0
0.2
5.1
0.0
5.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.4
-5.0
-0.7 -0.8
-1.0
-1.5
-1.6 0.0
-5.2 -2.2
-5.7 -2.1
-2.3
-3.0 -3.0 -2.8
-10.0 -5.0 -5.0 -5.0 -5.0 -0.9
-3.2 -4.1
-3.9
-4.1 -4.4
-4.4
-4.5 -4.5 -2.0 -2.1
-5.4 -5.0
-5.8
-15.0
-7.2 -7.3
-6.6
-14.6 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -10.0 -8.6
-10.0
-20.0 -17.9
-22.0
-25.0 -15.0 -15.0 -15.0 -15.0 -15.0
20002008 20092013 20142018 20002008 20092013 20142018 20002008 20092013 20142018 20002008 20092013 20142018 20002008 20092013 20142018 20002008 20092013 20142018
Source: IMF WEO, October 2019 and NBRNM calculations.
GDP growth and GDP components contributions (p.p.)
Albania BiH Bulgaria Croatia Czechia Hungary
15 15 15 15 15 15
10 10 10 10 10 10
6.1 6.0
4.9 4.3
4.3
3.3 3.6 3.9
3.0
3.4
5 5 2.7 5 5 5 5
2.3
2.4
0.0
0.1
0 0 0 0 0 0
-0.7
-0.4
-5 -5 -2.4
-5 -5 -5 -5
-10 -10
-10 -10 -10 -10
20012008 20092013 20142018 20012008 20092013 20142018 20012008 20092013 20142018 20012008 20092013 20142018 20012008 20092013 20142018 20012008 20092013 20142018
Montenegro N.Macedonia Poland Romania Serbia Slovenia
25 15 15 15 15 15
20
10 10 10 10 10
15
6.6 6.2
4.1 4.6
10 4.1
5.1 4.3
3.6 3.4
3.4
5 5 2.9 5 5 5
2.6 2.0
5 1.6
0.2
0.4
0
0 0 0 0 0
-5
-10
-0.4
-5 -5 -5 -5 -5
-1.8
-15
-20 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10
20012008 20092013 20142018 20012008 20092013 20142018
20012008 20092013 20142018 20012008 20092013 20142018 20012008 20092013 20142018 20012008 20092013 20142018
Source: Eurostat and NBRNM calculations.