COMMISSION WORKING DOCUMENT assessing the quality of data reported by Member States in 2012 on balance of payments, international trade in services and foreign direct investment
Date: 2013-11-14
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: balance of payments, disclosure of information, exchange of information, international investment, international trade, tertiary sector













EUR-Lex - 52013DC0784 - EN











|



52013DC0784

COMMISSION WORKING DOCUMENT assessing the quality of data reported by Member States in 2012 on balance of payments, international trade in services and foreign direct investment /* COM/2013/0784 final */









COMMISSION WORKING DOCUMENT
assessing the quality of data reported by
Member States in 2012 on balance of payments, international trade in services
and foreign direct investment

1.           Introduction
Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC)
No 184/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council on Community
statistics concerning balance of payments, international trade in services and
foreign direct investment (the ‘BoP Regulation’) [1] specifies that:
‘The quality
of the data transmitted shall be assessed, on the basis of the quality reports,
by the Commission with the assistance of the Balance of Payments Committee
referred to in Article 11(1). This assessment by the Commission shall be sent
to the European Parliament for information.’
This working
document assesses the quality of the data reported by the Member States in 2012.
It was prepared with the assistance of the Balance of Payments Committee, as
required by the BoP Regulation. It is based on the results of the balance of
payments (BoP) quality assessment exercise undertaken by Eurostat between
January and June 2013.
After a short description
of the principles applied for assessing the quality of official statistics and
a brief overview of the challenges encountered in compiling BoP data in a globalised
environment, this document analyses the extent to which BoP data comply with
the quality principles underpinning the European Statistical System (ESS).
In doing so, the
report focuses primarily on the legal obligations on Member States to compile
and transmit BoP data and how far they comply with them. It also provides
information relevant for assessing the quality of the BoP data, with particular
emphasis on total aggregates and the major components needed to compile the
aggregates.
2.           Assessing the quality of
official statistics
BoP quality
assessment is an annual exercise conducted by Eurostat in accordance with the
principles established by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1055/2008 implementing
Regulation (EC) No 184/2005 as regards quality criteria and quality reporting
for balance of payments statistics[2].
BoP quality assessment verifies compliance with all the quality criteria laid
down in Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 11 March 2009 on European statistics[3],
Article 12(1), namely: relevance, accuracy, timeliness, punctuality,
accessibility and clarity, comparability and coherence.
Eurostat has made great efforts to develop
quality management methods and tools for supporting the production of
high-quality European statistics. Quality reporting underpins quality
assessment, which in turn is the starting point for quality improvements. The ‘ESS
Handbook for Quality Reports’ details the full range of methods that can be
used for assessing the quality of official statistics[4], which differ according to the
type of statistical process.
The purpose of statistics is to produce
estimates of an unknown value; these estimates are not equal to the true values
because of variability and bias. Statistics may suffer from a wide range of
sampling and non-sampling errors. For statistics based on a sample survey there
is an established theory for checking accuracy that looks at the variability of
an estimator around its expected value, expressed by its variance, standard
error, coefficient of variation or confidence intervals. Like national accounts,
balance of payments data are compiled as aggregates of a variety of primary
statistics, some based on sample surveys, some derived from administrative
data, some resulting from models. In the case of aggregated statistics such as BoP,
accuracy cannot be measured by a direct approach. The two main instruments
that, according to the manuals on quality of statistics, can be used for
assessing the quality of statistics of this kind are the analysis of revisions
and the examination of errors and omissions[5];
both instruments are covered by this report.
The IMF has also developed standards for
assessing the quality of statistics, which form part of the Data Quality
Assessment Framework (DQAF). One specific DQAF is dedicated to BoP[6].
Eurostat’s BoP quality reports reflect the standards
established for the ESS and defined by the DQAF. To make these reports more
suited to capturing the different features of data quality, their content has
been expanded over time and will be further improved in the future.
While the quality of aggregated statistics
is not the simple sum of the quality of all the underlying primary data, the
quality of BoP data certainly depends on the quality of all the underlying data
sources. Quality reports are regularly prepared for international trade in
goods[7],
the main component of the current account; it would, however, be extremely
costly and time-consuming to assess the quality of every single component that
feeds BoP.
3.           Challenges encountered in
compiling BoP statistics
Systems for compiling balance of payments
statistics were initially developed as by-products of foreign exchange control
systems: resident banks collected and provided BoP compilers (generally in the
national central banks) with information on each individual transaction in
foreign currency. This source of information, called the international
transaction reporting system (ITRS) or ‘settlement-based reporting’, remains
the primary source for compiling BoP statistics in many countries outside the
European Union.
The lifting of foreign exchange
restrictions, the increasing number and complexity of cross-border financial
transactions and the integrated management of payments made by multinationals
gradually limited the comprehensiveness of the information collected from the
settlement system. In the EU, the usefulness of settlement-based reporting for
compiling BoP statistics was further limited by the moves to liberalise the EU
market in financial services[8].
Since the traditional data source used for compiling BoP data was becoming less
and less comprehensive, European BoP statisticians developed alternative data
sources, in a context of reduced resources and increasing opposition to the statistical
burden on respondents.
From 2000 onwards BoP compilers in the EU
introduced new data collection and compilation systems. The new systems,
already implemented in most of the EU Member States, are based on a combination
of different surveys, sometimes integrated with the limited information still
available from the ITRS. Greater use is made of information obtained directly
from firms or individuals. Fuller use is made of sampling and estimation
methods. Consistency with other statistics, e.g. on national accounts and on
merchandise trade, is monitored more closely and common tools have been set up
at the level of the EU and the euro area to make the compilation process more
uniform. One example is the Centralised Security Database that allows portfolio
investment data to be compiled by looking at the information on each individual
security; another example is the FDI network, which allows exchanges of micro-data
related to foreign direct investment (FDI).
4.           Relevance
‘Relevance’ means the degree to which
statistics meet the current and potential needs of users. As a result of the
financial crisis, BoP (and international investment position, IIP) data have
been attracting greater attention from users. BoP and IIP statistics are
fundamental tools for analysing external imbalances and are also used as
primary data for three of the eleven indicators that are part of the EU
Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure (MIP) scoreboard[9].
In the BoP quality assessment exercise,
relevance is measured in terms of the availability of the data required by the
BoP Regulation to the final users, assuming that users’ needs are well
reflected in the Regulation.
Since users’ needs evolve over time, the
Commission has amended the BoP data requirements in line with the new
international standards. The latest Commission Regulation amending the BoP
Regulation as regards the update of data requirements and definitions[10] was published in the Official
Journal on 27 June 2012 and will apply from 1 January 2014. 
As a consequence of the recent troubles in
the financial markets, users are, however, already expressing requests for
detailed BoP and IIP data that go beyond what is included in the amended BoP
Regulation. They would, for example, need more geographical breakdown, and
possibly bilateral data. Users responsible for trade
negotiations with non-EU countries have reiterated their request for
information on services ‘by mode of supply’[11]. Eurostat is pressing Member States to deliver this additional
information on a voluntary basis. 
4.1.        Data
availability
The data completeness criterion focuses on
the availability of the data required by the BoP Regulation. It is measured as
the share of the number of values which are provided out of the total number of
values required. Table 1 shows this indicator by Member State and by
dataset.
In the case of the euro indicators,
in the reference quarters (2011Q3-2012Q2) all the Member States complied fully with
the requirements of the BoP Regulation.
For the quarterly balance of payments, data
availability was stable throughout the latest quarters and averaged 98 %
for the reference periods (2011Q3-2012Q2), up from 95 % for the previous
four quarters (2010Q3-2011Q2) thanks to the increased detail reported by
Bulgaria, France (100% compliant since 2012Q1) and Romania. 
On international trade in services,
data availability increased slightly from 97 % in the previous year,
reaching 98 % for all data cells requested.
For both FDI
flows and FDI stocks, in the reference period 2011 (t + 9), the EU average fell
from the 100 % recorded the previous year to 98 % and 99 %
respectively. The overall availability of FDI data with an activity and
geographical breakdown for the reference year 2010 (t + 21) improved, though, from
92 % to 95 % for FDI flows and from 95 % to 97 % for FDI
stocks.
Data availability is very high for all BoP
domains. The few data not reported relate to very detailed items and
geographical or activity breakdowns.
Table 1: Data
completeness
   || Euro indicators (t + 2) || Quarterly balance of payments (t + 3) || International trade in services (t + 9) || FDI flows (t + 9) || FDI stocks (t + 9) || FDI flows (t + 21) || FDI stocks (t + 21) 
 Belgium || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 96 % || 39 % || 100 % 
 Bulgaria || 100 % || 93 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % 
 Czech Republic || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % 
 Denmark || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 99 % || 99 % 
 Germany || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % 
 Estonia || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % 
 Ireland || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 99 % || 99 % 
 Greece || 100 % || 100 % || 74 % || 100 % || 100 % || 70 % || 100 % 
 Spain || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % 
 France || 100 % || 92 % || 100 % || 93 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % 
 Italy || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 97 % || 100 % || 63 % 
 Cyprus || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % 
 Latvia || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % 
 Lithuania || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 95 % || 100 % 
 Luxembourg || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % 
 Hungary || 100 % || 98 % || 100 % || 99 % || 96 % || 100 % || 100 % 
 Malta || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % 
 Netherlands || 100 % || 100 % || 92 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % 
 Austria || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % 
 Poland || 100 % || 74 % || 100 % || 59 % || 87 % || 76 % || 84 % 
 Portugal || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % 
 Romania || 100 % || 97 % || 95 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % 
 Slovenia || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % 
 Slovakia || 100 % || 94 % || 97 % || 100 % || 100 % || 95 % || 96 % 
 Finland || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % 
 Sweden || 100 % || 94 % || 98 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % || 100 % 
 United Kingdom || 100 % || 100 % || 93 % || 99 % || 96 % || 91 % || 91 % 
 EU average || 100 % || 98 % || 98 % || 98 % || 99 % || 95 % || 97 % 
5.           Accuracy
‘Accuracy’ means the
closeness of estimates to the unknown true values. While primary statistics can
measure accuracy with statistical indicators such as mean errors and variance,
similar indicators cannot be developed for macroeconomic statistics that are
the result of a number of different data collection and compilation procedures.
The BoP quality report measures accuracy by looking at the size of the
revisions. It is assumed that each revision takes the dataset closer to the
true value.
Revisions do not mean
that ‘errors’ have been made or that the quality of the data has been
deteriorating over time. On the contrary, revisions are made when new data
sources and better information become available. A well established and
publicly communicated revisions policy is a sign of the strength of the
statistical system in question.
The size of revisions
is, however, a measure of the quality of the first release of a specific
dataset, compared with the latest vintage made available. There is a trade-off
between timeliness and size of revisions: the earlier the first release of a
dataset, the higher the revisions that can be expected as later vintages of the
same dataset are released.
5.1.        Stability
A very preliminary estimate of the quarterly
balance of payments is available 60 days after the reference period (‘euro indicators’),
while the first complete estimate is available 90 days after the end of the
reference period. Final estimates are normally
available after three and half years (14 quarters), but revisions are also
possible after longer periods.
Table 2 shows
the mean values of revisions of the quarterly balance of payments between data available
at t+60 and t+90 days, while Tables 3 and 4 show the mean values for
revisions from first to final estimate over the last 14 reference quarters (2009Q1-2012Q2),
expressed as a percentage of the original value.
Graph 1 shows the differences between
the first and final estimates for the total current account of the EU-27.
Revisions for credits were highest in 2007,
then kept decreasing until 2009 and remained constant thereafter. Revisions of
national data often balance out between countries. Estimates of the EU-27
aggregates are therefore quite stable over time.
Revisions in different directions for
credits and debits can result in sizeable revisions of the balance, even if the
absolute revisions are minor.
Mean values of revisions should be
interpreted with caution as they might be abnormally high if the initial
estimates were low. Indicators for small economies are very sensitive to this
factor: in a few cases they show extreme values despite the fact that the
absolute amounts of both the first estimates and subsequent revisions are very
small. More generally, cautious interpretation is also called for in cases
(e.g. financial derivatives) where revisions of net flows (debits minus
credits) are measured.
In the current account very small
revisions were recorded on both the credit and the debit sides of the goods
account, whereas in the services account the values of revisions
were generally little higher than for goods, being most significant for other
services. The income account is affected most by revisions, with
very high values often recorded on direct investment income due to the
difficulties compilers have in estimating profits in their first transmissions.
Over the 14 quarters considered, mean revisions were generally higher for the financial
account items than for the current account items, reflecting differences in
both the scale and volatility of cross-border financial transactions. For the
EU, the revisions were largest for outward direct investment, portfolio
investment liabilities and financial derivatives.
Table 2: Mean values of revisions for
euro indicators, 2009Q1-2012Q2, % of the original value
 MS || Goods || Services || Compen. of empl. || DI income || PI income || OI Income || Current transfers 
 C || D || C || D || C || D || C || D || C || D || C || D || C || D 
 BE || 0.9 || 1.2 || 3.3 || 3.9 || 0.6 || 12.3 || 16.3 || -56.5 || -1.9 || - || -2.8 || -8.5 || 20.4 || 7.3 
 BG || -0.9 || 0.1 || 2.8 || 3.8 || 4.5 || -33.4 || 98.4 || 17.7 || 23.9 || - || 12.5 || 22.7 || -0.5 || -9.6 
 CZ || 0.6 || 3.1 || 1.6 || 31.2 || 5.2 || -3.4 || 13.0 || 35.9 || 11.9 || - || -0.8 || -12.1 || 8.6 || 1.3 
 DK || 0.2 || 0.1 || 0.6 || 0.3 || 0.5 || 8.9 || 0.7 || 0.0 || -0.4 || - || 0.2 || 3.0 || 3.1 || 1.6 
 DE || 0.2 || 0.7 || 0.1 || -3.4 || 1.9 || 3.3 || 12.2 || 0.2 || -0.4 || - || 2.8 || 2.4 || 0.1 || -3.3 
 EE || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0.1 || 0.0 || -2.0 || 0.3 || -6.5 || -2.3 || -5.3 || - || 1.5 || 0.2 || 1.5 || 0.1 
 IE || 3.2 || 9.9 || 5.7 || -1.0 || 12.9 || -0.1 || 17.5 || 13.3 || 4.8 || - || -2.2 || -5.7 || 75.5 || 28.8 
 EL || -2.0 || -1.2 || -0.8 || -3.9 || -3.3 || -0.7 || 47.6 || -17.2 || -21.0 || - || -8.5 || -0.5 || -0.8 || 5.4 
 ES || 0.4 || -0.1 || 4.1 || 1.7 || 0.5 || 0.0 || 2.6 || 78.3 || -0.6 || - || -2.6 || -6.0 || -0.4 || -0.5 
 FR || -1.6 || -0.6 || -2.3 || -4.4 || 3.5 || 3.1 || 12.5 || 4.9 || 27.7 || - || -15.7 || -20.4 || 19.4 || 17.9 
 IT || 0.1 || 0.2 || 1.6 || 1.4 || 7.5 || 3.8 || -0.6 || -10.2 || -4.1 || - || 1.8 || 2.4 || 4.0 || 10.4 
 CY || 29.9 || 8.1 || 35.9 || 4.5 || 21.6 || 11.3 || 133.2 || 114.4 || -4.3 || - || 26.2 || 20.5 || 30.1 || 30.7 
 LV || -0.2 || -1.0 || -3.6 || -2.8 || 0.5 || -2.6 || -54.2 || -17.5 || 0.3 || - || -0.9 || -3.9 || -0.4 || -0.5 
 LT || 0.4 || 0.9 || 26.1 || 0.6 || 12.5 || 144.9 || -278.3 || 85.8 || 46.7 || - || 36.3 || 107.7 || 15.3 || 7.6 
 LU || 5.7 || 3.8 || 2.1 || 3.5 || -0.7 || -27.1 || 42.9 || 127.5 || 1.2 || - || 2.8 || -3.0 || 2.1 || -0.2 
 HU || -1.3 || -1.1 || -2.0 || -6.1 || 554.0 || -0.8 || 23.0 || 4.2 || -1.6 || - || 4.2 || 2.2 || 70.0 || 52.1 
 MT || 1.3 || 0.9 || 3.2 || 3.5 || 0.0 || 0.0 || -369.8 || 18.8 || 0.6 || - || -0.7 || -2.5 || c || c 
 NL || -0.2 || 1.7 || 3.6 || -0.9 || -41.4 || -23.1 || -13.2 || -35.1 || 2.6 || - || -46.0 || -39.8 || -19.8 || -2.3 
 AT || 1.5 || 11.1 || 6.1 || 3.2 || 0.8 || 1.1 || 2.2 || 7.7 || 0.9 || - || 0.5 || 1.9 || -1.0 || 2.3 
 PL || 1.1 || 1.2 || 0.5 || 0.9 || -2.9 || 26.7 || -485.0 || 14.8 || -1.7 || - || -5.3 || 35.4 || 16.9 || -0.6 
 PT || 0.4 || 0.0 || 0.1 || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || - || 0.3 || 7.0 || 17.8 || 26.0 
 RO || 0.0 || 0.1 || 3.9 || 2.1 || 4.5 || 2.7 || 189.3 || -11.0 || 4.7 || - || 19.3 || 2.0 || 1.7 || -0.6 
 SI || 2.7 || 6.9 || 20.1 || 12.9 || 0.0 || -0.9 || 1.0 || -3.3 || -0.2 || - || 0.2 || -0.1 || 1.9 || 2.1 
 SK || 3.3 || 0.5 || -6.6 || -6.4 || 79.1 || 25.7 || -252.3 || 83.9 || -7.4 || - || -13.1 || -15.9 || -7.4 || 65.6 
 FI || 1.2 || -1.8 || 0.2 || 0.3 || 0.2 || 1.0 || -2.5 || -57.3 || -0.2 || - || 0.1 || 0.0 || 17.8 || 4.5 
 SE || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || 0.0 || -0.6 || 0.0 || -36.3 || -50.8 || 0.0 || - || 0.0 || 0.0 || 8.8 || 6.0 
 UK || -0.8 || -0.5 || 0.1 || 0.6 || 2.7 || -2.5 || 125.2 || 2.0 || 2.5 || - || -5.6 || -4.2 || 23.9 || 4.1 
 EU || 0.1 || 0.7 || 1.8 || -0.4 || 0.7 || -2.2 || -1.3 || -12.7 || 3.8 || 3.5 || -7.4 || -7.8 || 0.6 || 4.5 
Table 3: Mean values of revisions for
main items of current account, 2009Q1-2012Q2 (%)
 MS || Goods || Services || Transport || Travel || Other services || Comp. of emp. || DI income || PI income || OI Income || Current transfers 
 C || D || C || D || C || D || C || D || C || D || C || D || C || D || C || D || C || D || C || D 
 BE || 1.1 || 3.1 || 9.3 || 6.0 || 1.5 || 2.5 || 3.0 || 1.6 || 15.1 || 2.5 || 4.8 || 29.0 || 9.6 || -3.6 || 7.1 || - || -10.0 || -29.8 || 31.7 || 11.1 
 BG || -0.4 || 1.2 || 0.6 || -0.7 || -8.1 || -9.1 || 5.1 || 4.5 || 3.5 || 7.9 || 2.4 || 41.7 || -92.1 || -308.7 || 3.3 || - || 3.8 || 9.5 || 9.4 || -3.9 
 CZ || 2.1 || -3.2 || 1.0 || 11.3 || -8.5 || 2.3 || 12.9 || -8.4 || 0.2 || -1.2 || 0.5 || 6.2 || -54.1 || 12.7 || -4.1 || - || -6.9 || -1.0 || 11.3 || -10.6 
 DK || 0.8 || -1.5 || 4.4 || 2.9 || 3.9 || 6.4 || -6.5 || 1.2 || 9.1 || -3.1 || 30.5 || -0.6 || -0.1 || -52.9 || 4.4 || - || 1.6 || -1.4 || 3.2 || -0.7 
 DE || 1.6 || 1.9 || 3.5 || 1.8 || 2.7 || 1.6 || 0.2 || 0.7 || 4.4 || 2.6 || 7.5 || 17.0 || 53.5 || -8.7 || -2.1 || - || 8.6 || 9.8 || -0.3 || -7.6 
 EE || -1.6 || -1.8 || 0.3 || -1.1 || 0.5 || -5.4 || -0.3 || 4.0 || 0.2 || 0.6 || -6.8 || 0.1 || 14.7 || 995.4 || 2.4 || - || -0.7 || -1.5 || -11.2 || -5.1 
 IE || -1.4 || -0.2 || -1.9 || -0.7 || -0.1 || 0.1 || 13.6 || -9.7 || -2.5 || -0.1 || 13.7 || -4.4 || 5.9 || -6.7 || 5.3 || - || -8.5 || -8.7 || -1.3 || 2.5 
 EL || -1.3 || -0.7 || -0.2 || -0.7 || -0.2 || -0.6 || 0.0 || 0.0 || -1.3 || -1.7 || -1.4 || -0.7 || 312.8 || -75.8 || 0.0 || - || -2.7 || -1.4 || -0.5 || 0.5 
 ES || 0.5 || -0.3 || 1.3 || 1.9 || 1.8 || 5.5 || 3.0 || 0.5 || 0.6 || 0.5 || 1.9 || -1.1 || 39.5 || 17.6 || -0.5 || - || 0.8 || -0.3 || 2.9 || 1.2 
 FR || 0.0 || -1.2 || 23.1 || 12.0 || 3.7 || 3.8 || 4.4 || -0.1 || 42.4 || 29.4 || 16.1 || -5.7 || 31.8 || 34.0 || 0.0 || - || 4.8 || 0.1 || 34.9 || 40.2 
 IT || -0.3 || 0.6 || 8.0 || 5.6 || 0.1 || 0.5 || 0.7 || 0.1 || 21.7 || 12.7 || 245.7 || 67.9 || 158.1 || 34.9 || 0.6 || - || 21.7 || -1.0 || 33.9 || 8.5 
 CY || -24.5 || -7.1 || 3.1 || 7.3 || 1.2 || 5.2 || -4.5 || 10.2 || 5.8 || 8.7 || 12.0 || 6.1 || 51.0 || 53.5 || 0.5 || - || 4.3 || 5.6 || -6.3 || -2.6 
 LV || -0.6 || -0.1 || -0.5 || -1.6 || -0.3 || 2.5 || 0.2 || 0.0 || -1.4 || -3.6 || -3.2 || 2.5 || 50.5 || -21.9 || -5.7 || - || -1.0 || -2.0 || 0.1 || -0.2 
 LT || -0.1 || -1.4 || 2.1 || 6.0 || -0.1 || 1.1 || 13.5 || 25.3 || -4.2 || -3.0 || 24.2 || 26.0 || 195.3 || 16.6 || -8.2 || - || -3.0 || -29.6 || -6.1 || 17.9 
 LU || -0.8 || 1.0 || -7.3 || -0.8 || -0.4 || -2.2 || 14.4 || 0.9 || -7.9 || -3.4 || 0.3 || 11.3 || 11.9 || 13.9 || 0.1 || - || -10.9 || -21.9 || -2.2 || -0.7 
 HU || -5.6 || -0.2 || 2.6 || 0.1 || -1.0 || -1.4 || 0.0 || -13.2 || 4.7 || 3.5 || -3.6 || -17.6 || 61.0 || 46.1 || 1.7 || - || -0.4 || 1.5 || 9.4 || 0.5 
 MT || 17.8 || 17.9 || 4.0 || 30.2 || 1.3 || 10.1 || c* || c* || 16.4 || 45.3 || -0.8 || -4.7 || -122.6 || -630.7 || 0.1 || - || -0.1 || 0.2 || c* || c* 
 NL || -1.2 || -1.0 || -0.1 || 2.1 || -0.1 || 0.8 || -1.8 || 0.0 || -0.1 || 2.6 || -0.5 || 63.9 || 31.1 || 27.5 || 2.3 || - || -1.5 || -5.1 || -21.3 || -6.2 
 AT || 0.7 || -1.0 || 1.8 || 0.4 || 1.6 || 1.1 || -0.5 || 0.7 || 2.8 || -0.3 || -0.2 || -5.9 || 24.7 || 56.4 || 2.4 || - || 0.5 || -0.2 || -0.8 || -2.3 
 PL || -0.5 || -1.4 || -1.2 || 0.8 || 1.3 || 2.4 || -2.8 || 5.7 || -0.9 || -2.0 || -22.7 || 203.1 || 163.1 || -22.2 || 8.0 || - || 0.0 || -0.3 || -34.4 || -14.2 
 PT || -0.4 || 0.0 || 0.3 || -0.1 || 0.1 || -1.6 || 0.0 || 0.3 || 1.1 || 0.7 || 0.1 || 8.5 || 21.2 || 2.2 || 0.4 || - || 15.3 || -4.0 || -8.5 || -10.7 
 RO || -0.1 || 1.3 || 2.3 || -8.9 || -5.4 || -22.5 || 2.7 || -0.2 || 5.6 || 2.6 || 4.6 || 1.4 || -662.5 || -277.7 || 0.3 || - || 22.7 || -4.4 || -0.5 || -4.2 
 SI || 0.3 || -0.1 || -7.2 || -1.9 || 6.1 || 0.1 || -0.4 || -6.5 || 0.7 || 3.6 || 91.3 || -8.7 || -137.7 || -26.2 || -1.2 || - || -0.2 || 2.3 || 3.6 || 17.5 
 SK || -0.4 || -0.5 || -1.8 || -1.0 || -0.9 || -5.0 || -3.9 || 6.5 || -2.6 || 0.6 || -12.3 || -29.6 || 186.5 || 118.9 || -1.0 || - || -1.0 || -3.1 || -20.5 || -20.6 
 FI || 1.0 || 0.7 || 10.8 || 18.7 || 12.3 || 4.1 || 3.2 || 2.0 || c* || c* || 0.3 || 6.2 || 13.2 || 506.3 || -4.7 || - || 0.3 || 3.2 || -1.9 || 7.0 
 SE || 0.2 || 0.5 || -1.3 || -0.1 || -0.9 || -3.9 || -5.9 || -2.8 || 0.1 || 1.9 || 2.0 || -3.6 || 7.7 || 51.4 || 3.0 ||   || -5.0 || -10.7 || -8.4 || 0.5 
 UK || 0.2 || -0.1 || 5.4 || 0.0 || 1.8 || -1.1 || 8.6 || 1.4 || 5.7 || -1.2 || 8.8 || -3.4 || -2.5 || 7.5 || 0.5 || - || 9.9 || 3.9 || 20.1 || 8.2 
 EU || 0.3 || 0.3 || 4.9 || 2.9 || 1.6 || 1.7 || 2.0 || 0.1 || 7.0 || 3.8 || 13.9 || 19.2 || 16.0 || 8.7 || -0.7 || -2.3 || 1.2 || -3.3 || 1.6 || 1.7 
*c – confidential 
Table 4: Mean values of revisions for
main items of financial account, 2009Q1-2012Q2
 QBOP FINANCIAL ACCOUNT MEAN (%) 
 MS || DI outward || DI inward || PI assets || PI Liabilities || OI assets || OI liabilities || Fin deriv. 
 BE || 33.2 || 1.6 || -90.5 || -13.2 || 30.5 || 8.2 || 132.4 
 BG || -182.6 || -154.4 || 59.1 || -7.5 || -920.6 || -45.7 || 6.7 
 CZ || -89.4 || 683.4 || -41.4 || 0.0 || -20.2 || -1802.9 || -14.0 
 DK || -3.1 || 180.0 || -40.2 || -10.9 || -4.7 || 0.7 || -14.7 
 DE || 141.7 || 32.0 || -2.5 || 15.9 || 45.3 || 2.8 || 35.6 
 EE || 38.3 || 110.3 || 3.4 || 66.9 || 2.3 || -94.6 || -13.3 
 IE || 47.1 || 38.2 || -35.4 || 87.9 || -14.7 || -3.8 || 18.0 
 EL || -557.7 || -131.7 || 54.4 || 0.4 || 1.2 || 1.3 || -1.1 
 ES || 207.2 || 48.7 || 25.0 || -3.8 || -3.1 || -14.7 || -29.6 
 FR || -7.5 || -17.6 || -30.7 || 4.5 || -29.4 || -29.4 || -359.2 
 IT || 161.8 || -23.7 || -156.0 || -1.9 || -1330.6 || 11.1 || 697.3 
 CY || 314.7 || 296.8 || -16.5 || -258.3 || -170.3 || -87.4 || -21.6 
 LV || -36.1 || -63.9 || -207.3 || 34.2 || -22.3 || 8.0 || 10.7 
 LT || -87.5 || 188.9 || -3.3 || -29.9 || 73.9 || 3.7 || -16.7 
 LU || -142.3 || 64.8 || -8.5 || -14.6 || 79.1 || -0.1 || 1721.6 
 HU || -84.9 || 52.4 || 46.2 || 4.0 || -2.0 || 33.4 || -2.8 
 MT || -9.1 || -101.3 || -5.1 || -49.4 || 0.2 || 2.1 || -3.2 
 NL || -51.7 || 121.8 || -5.3 || 10.1 || -257.4 || 34.7 || 14.8 
 AT || 114.9 || 52.7 || -2.7 || 5.9 || -7.3 || 16.8 || -225.7 
 PL || 275.5 || -34.4 || -50.4 || 1.2 || 66.1 || -17.5 || -2.3 
 PT || -364.4 || -94.3 || -15.2 || 39.8 || -39.5 || -14.5 || -9.4 
 RO || 473.5 || -131.2 || -167.0 || -18.5 || -41.3 || 42.5 || 40.1 
 SI || -23.5 || 35.3 || 5.3 || 12.0 || -20.3 || 43.8 || -2028.6 
 SK || 16.3 || 64.0 || 98.6 || 15.0 || -25.3 || 82.9 || -0.4 
 FI || 249.3 || -140.1 || 4.9 || 20825.7 || 9.9 || -3.1 || 23.7 
 SE || 87.6 || -51.4 || 7.2 || 17.1 || -148.4 || -34.1 || -38.2 
 UK || -3.6 || 32.6 || 159.9 || 8.8 || 1.5 || 87.6 || -14.4 
 EU || 35.2 || 9.0 || 4.0 || -32.1 || -3.7 || 10.9 || 70.5 
Graph 1: Differences between first and final estimates for EU-27
current account, 2005Q1-2012Q2, in EUR million
6.           Timeliness and
punctuality
Punctuality is measured in terms of compliance
with the deadlines for data transmission set by the BoP Regulation. Table 5
analyses the punctuality of the balance of payments statistics. It shows that,
with very few exceptions, the Member States were able to meet the deadlines for
all the datasets.
Timeliness could also be measured as the
gap between the reference period covered by the datasets and the moment when
the data are made available to the users. Currently BoP data are reported to
Eurostat 90 days after the end of the reference period. The amended BoP
Regulation takes into account users’ requests for more timely statistics,
reducing the reporting deadline from the current 90 days to 85/82/80 days, respectively
from 2014/2017/2019 onwards.
Table 5: Punctuality of data transmissions
   || Euro indicators* || Quarterly balance of payments* || International trade in services || Foreign direct investment — flows || Foreign direct investment — stocks 
 Deadline: || reference period + 2 months || reference period + 3 months || reference period + 9 months || reference period + 9 (or 21) months** || reference period + 9 (or 21) months** 
 Belgium || -1 || -1 || 0 || -3 || 24 
 Bulgaria || -10 || -13 || 0 || -2 || -2 
 Czech Republic || -2 || -9 || -8 || 11 || -6 
 Denmark || -16 || -8 || 0 || -3 || -3 
 Germany || -7 || -6 || -3 || -5 || -17 
 Estonia || -1 || -20 || -35 || -21 || -21 
 Ireland || -4 || -5 || -17 || -2 || -2 
 Greece || -7 || -4 || -2 || -4 || -3 
 Spain || 0 || -2 || -1 || -2 || -2 
 France || -3 || -3 || 0 || -3 || -3 
 Italy || -1 || -4 || 0 || 0 || 0 
 Cyprus || 0 || -1 || -1 || -3 || -3 
 Latvia || 0 || -23 || -25 || -27 || -27 
 Lithuania || -2 || -5 || 0 || -2 || -2 
 Luxembourg || -9 || -2 || -1 || -3 || 0 
 Hungary Luxembourg || -3 || -1 || 0 || -2 || -2 
 Malta || 0 || -4 || -10 || -3 || -3 
 Netherlands || -15 || -9 || -3 || -5 || -3 
 Austria || -3 || -4 || -4 || -58 || -58 
 Poland || 0 || -2 || -3 || -3 || -2 
 Portugal || -5 || -6 || -7 || -10 || -10 
 Romania || -1 || -6 || -2 || -4 || -4 
 Slovenia || -16 || -17 || -86 || -30 || -30 
 Slovakia || 0 || 0 || 0 || -5 || -5 
 Finland || -4 || -12 || -7 || -9 || -9 
 Sweden || -2 || -9 || -1 || -2 || -2 
 United Kingdom || 0 || 1 || -1 || -2 || -2 
*For euro indicators and quarterly balance
of payments, the average punctuality for four data transmissions
(2011Q3-2012Q2)
**For FDI (both flows and stocks), two separate data requests exist,
with different deadlines: 9 months and 21 months after the end of the reference
period. Both datasets are however due at the same date, end of September. 
7.           Accessibility and clarity
BoP data for the EU-27 Member States are
available free of charge from Eurostat’s website (Eurobase) at:            http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database.    
They are organised as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: BoP
data online for all users
Both the number and the detail of the BoP
data disseminated online have steadily increased over time. Regular
dissemination of data on workers’ remittances started in February 2010. Due to
the increasing interest in national BoP and IIP data, longer time series,
deeper geographical breakdowns and more complete tables started to be
disseminated in 2011. In 2011 new tables relating to ‘Main Balance of Payments
and International Investment Position items as a share of GDP’ and ‘Export
market shares’ were created and quarterly International Investment Position
data started to be disseminated. In April 2013 Eurostat started to disseminate
more granular information related to the quarterly BoP financial account.
8.           Comparability
‘Comparability’ relates to the differences
that can be observed when statistics on the same domain are compared between
geographical areas or over time.
The BoP quality report measures comparability
over space by looking at asymmetries. Eurostat regularly provides tables that
highlight the top persistent asymmetries for each country and item and
encourages countries to address the underlying problems via bilateral contacts
and exchanges of more detailed information. The foreign direct investment (FDI)
network was also set up to allow exchanges of bilateral FDI data and, in the
course of time, is expected to reduce the asymmetries in FDI.
Graph 2
compares EU-27 and World asymmetries. While EU-27 asymmetries are by no means
insignificant (they represent 0.8 % of EU GDP), they have been stable from
2004 onwards. The various initiatives that Eurostat is undertaking to address
asymmetries in the EU-27 BoP are clearly bearing fruit.
Graph 2: EU-27 and World asymmetries, total
current account, 1999-2012, in EUR million
9.           Coherence
Coherence focuses on the consistency of statistics
produced for different purposes. The BoP quality report measures this component
by looking at both internal consistency (compliance with integrity rules,
coherence between the quarterly and annual data and size of errors and
omissions) and external consistency (coherence between BoP data and similar
statistics from different statistical frameworks). The external consistency of
BoP goods data and foreign trade statistics (FTS) (as produced by Intrastat and
Extrastat) is regularly monitored.
9.1.        Internal consistency
Internal consistency is measured by looking
at the values of net errors and omissions. Net errors and omissions constitute the
residual item balancing the accounts. Sometimes compilation errors offset one
another. Consequently, the size of this residual item does not necessarily
provide any indication of the overall accuracy of the statement.
Net errors and omissions are closely
monitored by national BoP compilers: high values or constant increases are a
sign of problems in the compilation systems that have to be identified and
addressed.
Table 6
shows the average relative error recorded by the Member States for the period
2009-11. It is equal to the average of the absolute value of net errors and
omissions during the period in question (measured as a share of the average of
current account credits and debits), as recorded in the quarterly balance of
payments of the Member States. For the period 2009-11 five Member States
(Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Ireland) recorded a value of around 10 %
for this indicator. Compared to period 2008-10, the size of errors and
omissions decreased slightly in Bulgaria, Finland and Sweden. In Italy the values
of errors and omissions remain high, and are due to the transition towards a
totally new collection and compilation system.
Table 7
shows the cumulated relative sum of errors and omissions (E&O), which is
computed for each period as the cumulated sum of E&O divided by the total
current account (sum of credit and debit). This indicator assesses the persistency
of the sign of errors and omissions, showing lower values for Member States for
which errors and omissions are changing signs, an indicator of E&O not
being systematic. In 2011 five Member States (Denmark, Italy, Poland, Slovakia
and Finland) recorded a value in excess of 10 % for this indicator.
Table 6: Average relative
error, 2009-11
 Belgium || 1 % || France || 8 % || Austria || 4 % 
 Bulgaria || 6 % || Italy || 12 % || Poland || 5 % 
 Czech Republic || 2 % || Cyprus || 3 % || Portugal || 2 % 
 Denmark || 10 % || Latvia || 2 % || Romania || 5 % 
 Germany || 4 % || Lithuania || 1 % || Slovenia || 2 % 
 Estonia || 2 % || Luxembourg || 0 % || Slovakia || 4 % 
 Ireland || 9 % || Hungary ||  2 % || Finland || 9 % 
 Greece || 3 % || Malta || 4 % || Sweden || 10 % 
 Spain || 3 % || Netherlands || 4 % || United Kingdom || 4 % 
Table 7: Cumulated relative
errors and omissions, 2011
 Belgium || 1 % || France || 3 % || Austria || 0 % 
 Bulgaria || 9 % || Italy || -12 % || Poland || -17 % 
 Czech Republic || -4 % || Cyprus || 2 % || Portugal || -2 % 
 Denmark || -19 % || Latvia || 4 % || Romania || -4 % 
 Germany || 4 % || Lithuania || 0 % || Slovenia || 0 % 
 Estonia || -1 % || Luxembourg || 0 % || Slovakia || -12 % 
 Ireland || -5 % || Hungary || -5 % || Finland || -19 % 
 Greece || -2 % || Malta || 7 % || Sweden || -1 % 
 Spain || -2 % || Netherlands || -4 % || United Kingdom || 0 % 
9.2.        External consistency
External consistency relates to the
coherence between BoP data and similar statistics from different statistical
frameworks.
External consistency relating to goods, as
reported in BoP data and in foreign trade statistics (FTS), is regularly
monitored by Eurostat. When comparing the two datasets, methodological
differences between the BoP and FTS should be taken into account. The main ones have to do with the fact that the BoP requires a
change of ownership in order to record a transaction, whereas FTS record
physical cross-border movements of goods, and with different valuation methods[12]. One
example of this difference is the treatment of non-monetary gold that changes
ownership without being physically moved to the country of the new owner; this
gold is not included in FTS but is included in the BoP.
The overall consistency between FTS and BoP
data can be assessed quickly by looking at the time series of differences
between the values for credits/exports and debits/imports available from the
two statistical frameworks and is shown in Graph 3 for the EU-27 aggregate.
The consistency between the data on goods in the BoP and in FTS has improved in
recent years and the difference has stabilised at fairly low levels.
Graph 3: Goods ─ difference
between FTS and BoP, EU-27 and ‘extra EU-27’ partners
10.         Conclusions
The entry into force of the BoP Regulation led
to closer harmonisation of balance of payments statistics throughout the EU and
increased the availability of data to users.
This working document shows that the BoP
data required by Eurostat under the BoP Regulation are reported by every Member
State, generally on time. A much larger amount of BoP data is now available to
final users compared to what could be obtained at the end of the 1990s: more
detail is now available on transactions and geographical breakdowns, the
frequency and timeliness of the data have improved and longer time series have
been reconstructed for the sake of economic analysis. Greater use is made of
estimation, increasing the importance of quality reports that allow regular
monitoring of the stability and consistency of the data.
As a result of the financial crisis, both
BoP and IIP data are under closer scrutiny by users. Eurostat and national compilers
are making every effort to ensure that BoP and IIP data fully meet the needs of
the wide circle of users.
The next BoP quality assessment exercise
will start in January 2014.
[1]               OJ L 35, 8.2.2005, p. 23.
[2]               OJ L 283, 28.10.2008, p. 3.
[3]               OJ L 87, 31.3.2009, p. 164.
[4]               See ‘ESS Handbook for Quality Reports’, Eurostat
Working Papers, 2009. See also ‘ESS Standard for Quality
Reports’, Eurostat Working Papers,
2009.
[5]               See ‘ESS Handbook for Quality Reports’, Eurostat,
2009, p. 65.
[6]               See http://dsbb.imf.org/images/pdfs/dqrs_bop.pdf.
[7]               See http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/publication?p_product_code=KS-RA-10-026.
[8]               Regulation 2560/2001 on cross-border payments in euro
exempted all transactions below the threshold of EUR 12 500
from statistical reporting. When
Regulation 2560/2001 was reviewed, the threshold was raised to EUR 50 000
(Regulation (EC) 924/2009, Article
5(1)).
[9]               http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/excessive_imbalance_procedure/imbalance_scoreboard.
[10]             Commission Regulation (EU) No 555/2012 of 22 June 2012,
OJ L 166, 27.6.2012, p. 22.
[11]             This would involve making a clear distinction between
transactions depending on whether: (a) it is the service
which is provided across the border (‘mode
1’), (b) it is the consumer who crosses the border (‘mode 2’),
or (c) it is the provider of the service
who moves across the border (‘mode 4’). See Manual on
Statistics of International Trade in
Services 2010, Chapter V.
[12]             Imports/debits are valued free
on board (f.o.b.) in the BoP, but are valued cost, insurance and freight
(c.i.f.) in FTS.