WRITTEN QUESTION E-2717/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Trade íntensity of GDP growth.
Date: 2000-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: economic analysis, economic consequence, economic growth, gross domestic product, trading operation

C 113 E/156

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

First estimates of FDI flows in 1999 published by Eurostat (see tables 1.a and 1.b sent direct to the
Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat) together with revised 1998 data indicate that outflows
from eurozone countries reached a record high of about € 300 000 million as compared to about
€ 240 000 million in 1998. An increase was also reported for inward flows to the zone which surged
from € 150 000 million to € 170 000 million in 1999. At the Member States level no breakdown by
destination was made available for France. Among the other Member States, Belgium, Germany and the
Netherlands reported both the largest inward and the largest outward flows. Substantial changes in these
flows, as for instance the tripling of French outward flows in 1999 or the drop in Finnish outward flows
down to one sixth of the 1998 figure, have to be related to single mergers and acquisitions. In that regard
any comparison between pre-European Monetary Union (EMU) and EMU years can only provide a limited
amount of information.

In August 2000 the Bundesbank reported capital flows between Germany and other parts of the zone in
to the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s
its statistical supplements (see table 2 sent direct
Secretariat). Capital exports to the rest of the zone had increased by about one quarter in 1999 compared
to 1998 while capital imports in 1999 fell to one third of the level reported for 1998. In the first half of
2000 the increases in net German investment abroad were at the same level as in 1999 while net foreign
investment from eurozone countries in Germany dropped as capital imports from this area turned into
capital exports. Key determinants were portfolio investment outflows and direct investment outflows.
Again however, these statistics display large and abrupt changes, possibly reflecting single transactions. In
that regard differences identified in comparisons of data for 1998 and 1999 could only be related to the
start of EMU and have to be interpreted with great caution.

(2001/C 113 E/163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2717/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Trade (cid:237)ntensity of GDP growth

Will the Commission please estimate the relationship between trade growth and GDP growth in each of
the Member States and indicate whether the advent of the euro has yet had any effect in increasing the
trade intensity of GDP growth since its introduction on 1 January 1999?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(21 September 2000)

The relationship between trade growth and gross domestic product (GDP) growth in Member States varies
considerably between Member States and over time. The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable
Member and Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat an annex containing this information. The considerable variation
from quarter to quarter and the lack of sufficient long-term data on a monthly or quarterly basis (at best
from 1986 to the first quarter of 2001) makes it difficult to identify clear trends for the very recent period.

Bearing in mind that limitation, it seems nevertheless that for those Member States for which time series
exist since the mid eighties, some slight trend increase in trade elasticities (ratio of export or import
growth to GDP growth) is to be recorded. These elasticities tend to amount on average to around 3 over
the past decades, which means that in general trade grows by that factor faster than GDP. Looking at the
period from 1995 onwards, as regards exports, Spain, France and Sweden show a particularly high
elasticity. For imports this applies to Spain, Italy and the United Kingdom.

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/157

This is reflected in the constant rise of the respective shares of exports and imports of goods and services
in GDP, from around 25 % for Community exports in 1991 to around 35 % in 1999/2000. However, for
this measure there is a considerable variation among Member States, varying (for exports in the 1st quarter
of 2000, for those Member States for which quarterly figures exist) from 80,5 % for Belgium to 29,6 % for
Italy.

No particular shift in trends could be identified for the period from 1999 onwards, the beginning of the
third stage of economic and monetary union, for those Member States being part of the euro area. Equally,
the close parallelism between the euro area and the Community as a whole as regards trade elasticities and
trade shares has continued to prevail.

The lack of visible effects from the introduction of the euro should not come as a surprise, as the available
time span (5 quarters) is still too short to measure the eventual impact, given the mentioned volatility of
the underlying figures. The expected effects might materialize with some delay, adding to the above
mentioned measurement problem. Some diversion of trade with third countries to intra-euro area trade
might have taken place. The aggregate effects on total trade might therefore be small. As the Commission
publishes only trade figures for total trade, such trade diversion effects would not easily be discovered
(Eurostat(cid:146)s customs trade statistics distinguish between intra-and extra Community trade, but these are only
in value terms and do not include trade in services).

Finally the completion of the internal market, with, notably, the abolition of barriers to trade in goods and
services and movement of capital, was a major event for the volume and structure of cross-border trade
flows of Member States. The adaptation of cross-border trade to that change of regime is still taking place
and overlays any other parallel effects on cross-border trade, such as the introduction of the single
currency.

(2001/C 113 E/164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2718/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Launch aid for Airbus Industrie(cid:146)s A3XX aircraft

1. What measures has the Commission taken to ensure that the launch aid proposed by the British,
German, French and Spanish Governments for Airbus Industrie(cid:146)s A3XX aircraft does not distort competi-
tion for other segments of the EU civil aviation market?

Is the Commission concerned that the launch aid proposed for Airbus Industrie(cid:146)s A3XX aircraft may

2.
lead to retaliatory measures being taken by the United States which may affect other EU businesses?

3.

4.

Does it therefore regard the launch aid as a matter of common EU concern?

If so, how has it expressed this concern?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 October 2000)

1.
The fundamental position of the Commission is that the R&D aid for Airbus Industrie does not affect
trade between Member States and so is not caught by Article 87(1) (former Article 92) of the EC Treaty
(cf. most recently the Commission decision of 22 December 1998 concerning aid N 369/98 (cid:129) France (cid:129)
Repayable advance to AØrospatiale for the Airbus A340-500/600 (1)).