COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT STATISTICAL ANNEX Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE Alert Mechanism Report 2015 (prepared in accordance with Articles 3 and 4 of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances) /* SWD/2014/0346 final */





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